Full text of "Governor's Day 1970"

See other formats

Governor’s Day 1970

Interviewee: Multiple Interviewees
Interviewed: 1970
Published: 2005

Interviewers: Mary Ellen Glass, Ruth Hilts, and Marian Rendall
UNOHP Catalog #204

Description

The word “Vietnam” signifies a country, a war, and for many, a historical marker for a period of cultural revolution.
There were significant protests in Reno and Las Vegas, but when the nation’s attention was pointed West, it focused
mostly on California. However, in the spring of 1970, the force of the larger antiwar movement came to Reno in ways
that jolted many Nevadans into taking notice. The University of Nevada, Reno faced weeks of volatile unrest and
protest unlike anything it had witnessed before—and nothing else quite like it has happened in the thirty years since.

On April 20, Richard Nixon announced the withdrawal of another 150,000 troops from Vietnam, but ten days later
announced the invasion of Cambodia. Opposition to the war in Indochina increased the following week, with over
500 campuses shut down across the country and with explosives or firebombs used against ROTC buildings.

The turning point came on Monday, May 4, when Ohio National Guardsmen armed with bayonets and tear gas broke
up a crowd of antiwar protestors at Kent State University. Four people were killed, and eleven were wounded. The
nation was stunned, yet the following day, May 5,1970, UNR officials decided to proceed with a military ceremony
to celebrate the governor and the university’s ROTC cadets. This “Governor’s Day” ceremony prompted several
hundred students, staff, and faculty to march in protest of the Cambodian invasion and the campus killings. What
became known simply as “Governor’s Day” prompted campus-wide debates, a surge of statewide media coverage,
fiery rhetoric from local politicians, and two fire bombing incidents that re-cast the peaceful protest as a campus¬
wide revolt.

In the days that followed the protest, media coverage of Governor’s Day began to spread, generating public hostility
toward the Nevada campus and its administration. In a monthly meeting of the board of regents, Chairman Procter
Hug Jr. called for the investigation of two English Department faculty members, Paul Adamian and Fred Maher,
whom he believed were prominent in the week’s disruption. In the end, the regents fired Adamian from his tenured
position for his leadership role in the protest. The charges against Maher were dropped.

In 1970, over fifty individuals—students, faculty, staff, and state officials—related to the events of Governor’s Day
were interviewed in the weeks immediately following the protest. The interviews collected in this volume speak not
only of Governor’s Day, but also the larger politics of the war, concerns for the environment, reflections on higher
education, and speculations about the future.

In the years since 1998, UNR doctoral student Brad Lucas re-interviewed several of the original chroniclers.
These more recent interviews can be found in a second volume published by the UNOHP, Governor’s Day 1970:
A Retrospective View.

The events surrounding Governor’s Day can teach us lessons about the turbulence in our country during the Vietnam
years, prompting us to rethink the political and economic forces that shaped what we have considered history.

Governor’s Day 1970

From oral history interviews
conducted by Mary Ellen Glass,
Ruth Hilts, and Marian Rendall

Edited by Brad Lucas

University of Nevada
Oral Flistory Program

University of Nevada Oral History Program
Mail Stop 0324
Reno, Nevada 89557
unohp @unr. edu
http: / / www. unr. edu/ oralhistory

Publication Staff:

Director: R. T. King
Assistant Director: Mary A. Larson
Production Manager: Kathleen M. Coles
Production Assistants: Jamie Gradick, Alberia Martinez,
Pedro Oiarzabal, Beth Opperman, Linda Sommer,

D. Strand, and Kathryn Wright-Ross

University of Nevada Oral History Program Use Policy

All UNOHP interviews are copyrighted materials. They may be downloaded and/or
printed for personal reference and educational use, but not republished or sold. Under
“fair use” standards, excerpts of up to 1000 words may be quoted for publication without
UNOHP permission as long as the use is non-commercial and materials are properly
cited. The citation should include the title of the work, the name of the person or
people interviewed, the date of publication or production, and the fact that the work
was published or produced by the University of Nevada Oral History Program (and
collaborating institutions, when applicable). Requests for permission to quote for other
publication, or to use any photos found within the transcripts, should be addressed
to the UNOHP, Mail Stop 0324, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557-0324.
Original recordings of most UNOHP interviews are available for research purposes
upon request.

Contents

Preface

Introduction

Paul Adamian

Elizabeth Anderson

Glen Atkinson

Carl Backman

Edmund Barmettler

Sam M. Basta

James Blink

Kenneth J. Carpenter

Americo Chiarito

William G. Copren

Thomas Cosgrove

Joseph N. Crowley

CONTENTS

Frankie Sue Del Papa

105

John R. Doherty

113

Bruce Douglas

121

Larry Dwyer

133

Dennis Flynn

139

Joel M. Gartenberg

145

Taber Griswold

153

Robert D. Harvey

161

Benjamin A. Hazard

175

Beverly M. Hudson

193

Procter Hug Jr.

201

James Hulse

211

Laurance M. Hyde Jr.

223

David Keller

231

Lawrence M. Kirk

243

Fred Maher

255

Bob Malone

263

John P. Marschall

267

N. Edd Miller

277

Charlotte E. Morse

283

Edward A. Olsen

291

Richard Patterson Jr.

299

Gary Peltier

307

Edward Pine

313

CONTENTS

vii

Brooke M. Piper

317

James T. Richardson

329

Joseph H. Robertson

343

Charles W. Ross

349

Elmer R. Rusco

357

Alan S. Ryall

371

Joseph Sellers

377

Charles Seufferle

383

Richard W. Sherwood

391

Richard L. Siegel

399

Richard C. Sill

405

Anthony Springer

425

Louis S. Test

435

William C. Thornton

443

William W. Valline

449

David W. Watson

463

Brian Whalen

471

Mary Ellen Glass, Ruth Hilts, and

Marian Rendall

477

Index 489

Photograph Credits 495

Preface

Founded in 1964, the University of Nevada
Oral Flistory Program (UNOF1P) records and
collects interviews that address significant topics
in Nevada’s remembered past. The program’s
chroniclers are primary sources: people who
participated in or directly witnessed the events
and phenomena that are the subjects of the
interviews. Following precedent established by
Allan Nevins at Columbia University in 1948.
and peipetuated since by academic programs such
as ours, these recorded interviews and their
transcripts are called oral histories.

This research volume is crafted from the
verbatim transcripts of interviews conducted by
Mary Ellen Glass, Ruth Flilts, and Marian
Rendall, but this volume is easier to read. Remaining
faithful to the transcripts’ contents, and adhering
as closely as possible to chroniclers’ spoken
words, the manuscript was edited for clarity. The
editor also gave it chronological and topical
organization not always found in the raw
transcript. Readers who desire access to the
unaltered oral histories are invited to visit the
offices of the UNOFIP, where the tapes of the
interviews may be heard by appointment.

To add context to written representations of
the spoken word, the UNOFIP uses certain
editorial conventions. Laughter is represented
with [laughter] at the end of a sentence in which
it occurs; and ellipses are used, not to indicate
that material has been deleted, but to indicate that
a statement has been interrupted or is incom¬
plete ... or there is a pause for dramatic effect.

As with all of our oral histories, while we
can vouch for the authenticity of Governor’s Day
1970, we advise the reader to keep in mind that
it is composed of personal opinions and accounts
of the remembered past, and we do not claim that
it is entirely free of error. Intelligent readers will
approach it with the same anticipation of
discovery, tempered with caution, that they would
bring to government reports, diaries, newspaper
stories, and other interpretations of historical
information.

UNOFIP

December 2005

Introduction

The singular word “Vietnam” evokes a range
of significant, and often emotionally charged,
meanings for most Americans. It signifies a
country, a war, and for many, a historical marker
for a period of cultural revolution. The dramatic
confrontations and violent conflict generated
from college campuses provide much of the
imagery for our modern representations of the
Vietnam War era. And physical location helps
us to define the story: “Chicago,” “New Haven,”
and “Kent State” elicit rich historical meanings,
each with their own narratives of conflict and
compromise, dissent and repression.

Throughout the late 1960s, most Nevadans
felt the turbulence of the war mostly in small
doses. There were significant protests in Reno
and Las Vegas, but when the nation’s attention
was pointed west, it focused mostly on California.
However, in the spring of 1970, the force of the
larger antiw ar movement came to Reno in ways
that jolted many Nevadans into taking notice. The
University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) faced weeks
of volatile unrest and protest unlike anything it
had witnessed before—and nothing else quite like
it has happened in the thirty years since.

On April 20, Richard Nixon announced the
withdrawal of another 150,000 troops from
Vietnam, but ten days later announced the

invasion of Cambodia. As protestors saw it,
“Tricky Dick” had indeed kept his promise to
scale back involvement in Vietnam, but escalated
maneuvers in Cambodia. Opposition to the war
in Indochina increased the following week, with
over 500 campuses shut down across the
country—with explosives or firebombs used
against ROTC buildings at an average rate of four
per day.

The turning point came on Monday, May 4,
when roughly eight hundred Ohio National
Guardsmen armed with bayonets and tear gas
broke up a crowd of nearly five hundred antiwar
protestors at Kent State University. Four people
were killed, and eleven were wounded. The
nation was stunned, yet the following day, UNR
officials decided to proceed with a military
ceremony to celebrate the Governor and the
university’s ROTC cadets. This “Governor’s
Day” ceremony prompted several hundred
students, staff, and faculty to march in protest of
the Cambodian invasion and the campus killings.
What became known simply as “Governor’s
Day” prompted campus-wide debates, a surge of
statewide media coverage, fiery rhetoric from
local politicians, and two fire bombing incidents
that re-cast the peaceful protest as a campus-wide
revolt.

INTRODUCTION

xii

Cambodia, Kent State, and Governor’s Day

In the weeks before Governor’s Day, student
unrest at UNR was focused primarily on minority
issues, particularly legal proceedings against two
outspoken black students. Rumors had already
been circulating that the Black Panthers were
coming to campus, and the national leaders of
the Brown Berets (a Mexican-American affiliate
of the Panthers) had already arrived. The United
Student Alliance (USA) was formed, a coalition
of black and white students that was gaining
increasing vocal support from faculty. Relatively
small in numbers, the USA was not an immediate
threat to the relative stability of campus life, but
with a more inclusive approach and increased
faculty support, it was a larger and more complex
group for the administration to contend with.
Campus meetings were organized to discuss
black-white relations, although often not
satisfactory to USA members and their supporters
who demanded institution-wide reforms. Many
campus activists saw “the proper channels” for
reform as an ineffective, corrupt system designed
to appease students.

In response to the Cambodia invasion,
campus activists deliberated plans to disrupt the
Governor’s Day ceremonies on Tuesday, May 5,
1970. The annual Governor’s Day ceremony had
been an ROTC event since the 1930’s, and it had
become a focal point for voicing dissent against
the war in Vietnam. For the 1969 Governor’s Day,
activists had dyed Manzanita Lake blood red, and
they left canisters of gasoline near Hartman Hall,
the ROTC administration building. For the 1970
ceremony, cadets set up a twenty-four-hour guard
watch to prevent pranks or more radical action.

In discussing options, some students wanted
to take over Hartman Hall, whereas others
envisioned bombing it during the ceremony
(when the building would be empty). Less
militant students simply wanted to hold a rally at
the Manzanita Bowl like they had the year before.
A consensus was finally reached among student
activists that this year they would try to disrupt
the ceremony, but in a nonviolent way.

Activists met at the Hobbit Hole, a house near
campus, to plan for the protest, while on the other
end of campus, cadets began their night-long vigil
to guard the ROTC building. Protestors began
preparing signs and tactics for the disruption of
the ceremonies, including hundreds of fake fliers
that announced the cancellation of Governor’s
Day ceremonies at Mackay Stadium. Faculty
members present at the protest meeting attempted
to persuade students not to disrupt the event, but
they could not convince students that the tactics
were ineffective means of protest.

Activists were painting signs and discussing
strategies on Monday, May 4, when stories about
Kent State began to circulate in the media. What
had started as a campus response to U. S. foreign
policy had suddenly mushroomed into a complex
demonstration against all state-sponsored power.
For many, the stakes were higher than at any other
point since the war began. Protest organizers soon
discovered that the Kent State shootings would
not prompt a UNR campus closing, an
administrative decision that seemed to them
callous and insensitive, if not outright appalling.
After all, the week before, President Miller had
approved a partial closing of campus for the Wild
West parties of Mackay Day, an annual rites-of-
spring celebration at UNR.

When activists learned that Governor’s Day
would proceed as planned, they were incensed.
The decision was seen not just as bad taste, but
as an affront to the peace movement and an insult
to the students who had died in Ohio. Considering
the gravity of Kent State, many activists thought
Governor’s Day should either be postponed or,
at the very least, include some recognition of the
tragedy. Supporters of the event asserted that the
plans had been made months earlier for Governor
Paul Laxalt to review the cadets and distribute
medals and awards. As campus strikes were
forming across the nation, word spread across
the UNR campus that Governor’s Day would be
disrupted as part of the Tuesday strike, so extra
police officers had been assigned for crowd
control.

INTRODUCTION

xiii

Robert Harvey, a faculty member in English,
had asked Laxalt to make a speech during the
stadium ceremony acknowledging the Kent State
tragedy. However, the governor flatly refused,
stating, “No way. My friend Governor Rhodes
in Ohio is running for the senate nomination
today, and I’m not going to embarrass him in any
way. I don’t want any story going out on the
national wire from Nevada that would embarrass
him.” (Rhodes was seeking a vital senate position,
one of seven needed for Republican control of
the senate for the following year.) Considering
that similar requests to acknowledge Kent State
had been turned down by both Miller’s and
Laxalt’s offices, the administrative position about
Governor’s Day seemed firmly entrenched.

Peace Rally and the Governor’s Motorcade

Campus protest against the war had started
in 1966 with picket lines at Mackay Stadium, but
the demonstrations had grown to such an extent
that a separate protest event was held in 1969 at
the Manzanita Bowl at the south end of campus.
This first Governor’s Day Peace Rally drew
larger crowds than those attending the stadium
activities.

In 1970, problems had already developed at
the Manzanita Bowl before the rally began.
Although a microphone system had been
promised for the rally, it had not been delivered,
which prompted some anger and frustration
among organizers. Several observers inteipreted
the problem as mere disorganization and
disagreement among the planners, giving rise to
later claims about a “spontaneous” protest
moving from the bowl to the stadium. Despite
any real or perceived disagreements among the
rally participants, a march to the stadium had been
planned days before. Some faculty members
perceived the marchers as an unorganized mob
and decided to act as impromptu monitors, hoping
to provide some safety and direction for their
students.

Although organizers had planned to lead a
march to the stadium, they had not anticipated

the presence of the governor’s motorcade,
comprised of seventeen vehicles parked nearby.
The protestors swarmed the motorcade, shouting
and chanting antiwar slogans. Some of the
vehicles tried to edge their way through the
crowd. Former ROTC commander Colonel Earl
Ralf was riding in the fifth car, and he recalled
actually encouraging his driver, a young cadet,
to drive through the throng—even if it meant
running over anyone in the way. While no one
was hurt in the incident, there were several near
accidents as vehicles tried to inch their way
through, not realizing that students were sitting
or lying down across the pavement. Some faculty
members tried to pull students out of the way,
shouting through the noise to alert drivers that
people were in danger.

Many details of Governor’s Day remain
contested, particularly regarding the blockade.
For example, one student stretched out on his
stomach in front of a car, and English professor
Paul Adamian shouted at both the driver and the
student, pounding on the car hood. Demonstrators
assert that Adamian was trying to get the student
to move, hitting the car to alert the driver. To
passengers in the motorcade, it appeared that
Adamian was shouting out orders for students to
place themselves between the cars, pounding car
hoods to scare the drivers into stopping. In later
deliberations about the event, a photograph of
Adamian pointing at the student validated both
interpretations: he could have been directing the
student to get up or telling him to lie in front of
the car.

With assistance from some of the faculty,
Reno police were finally able to clear the
blockade and escort the motorcade up Virginia
Street. Altogether, the disturbance lasted only ten
to fifteen minutes, but observers recalled that it
might have been a taste of conflict that
encouraged demonstrators and boosted their
confidence for the protest at the stadium.

Maekay Stadium

The faculty and administrative response to
the protest is vital for interpreting the day’s

XIV

INTRODUCTION

events. After an unsuccessful attempt to stop the
protest march to the stadium, history professor
James Hulse had a brief exchange with Proctor
Hug, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Regents.
Hulse had been led to believe that the marchers
would circle the stadium track three times, and
Hug agreed that this would be a good way to
avoid trouble and allow the crowd to express its
views, all without disrupting the ceremony itself.
However, at some point a key element was not
disclosed: it was assumed that the crowd would
circle the stadium and then leave, rather than
moving the protest directly into the stands to
disrupt the proceedings.

As four to five hundred protestors entered
the stadium, they circled the track shouting,
“Peace now!” “No more war!” and, “End the
war!” Cadets stood at parade rest at the east side
of the stadium, facing the bleacher stands to the
west, where dignitaries and officials filled the
first two rows. The crowd marched north along
the track, circling clockwise around the stadium
twice.

Some faculty served as monitors, playing a
role necessary for successful nonviolent protest.
In short, their purpose was to control the crowd
and channel energy in useful, sensible directions.
Faculty monitors made strong efforts to keep the
demonstrators on the stadium track, trying to
prevent them from acting on impulse but also
knowing that there was a collective momentum
that could not be easily stopped.

Marching and chanting was simply not
enough for some demonstrators. Some found an
outlet by knocking off cadets’ hats, whereas
others proposed replacing the American flag with
a peace flag. There were several occasions when
the orderly march could have become something
more volatile and dangerous, but the faculty
monitors knew enough about the students to
engage them in productive ways.

With only two trips around the stadium, the
protestors moved into the stands, but the crowd
had thinned to only a few hundred demonstrators,
who nonetheless outnumbered the small group
gathered for the ceremony. In addition, roughly
twenty members of the United Student Alliance

(USA) sat on the edge of the field, encouraging
the larger crowd to disrupt the military exhibition.

When a military aide asked the small group
of demonstrators to move, they refused. As one
cadet claimed, the university police were under
orders not to touch the (mostly African-
American) students in the USA. Campus police
did not disturb the group: perhaps out of fear that
an immediate conflict between black students and
police would be perceived as racially motivated,
or possibly because this smaller group was not
doing anything directly to disturb the ceremonies.

Despite protestor attempts to disrupt the
ceremony, it proceeded with no official
recognition of the Cambodian invasion or the
deaths at Kent State. As it became increasingly
clear that the ceremony was not going to include
any such acknowledgment, the crowd grew more
disruptive, ridiculing the military proceedings at
every opportunity with singing and chanting.
After President Miller asked the crowd to allow
the ceremony to proceed undisturbed,
demonstrators briefly settled down.

Some witnesses recalled that, at this point,
Adamian tried to maintain the crowd’s
momentum, but most demonstrators argued that
they were acting independently and Adamian did
nothing extraordinary to encourage the protest.
Other protestors provoked wildly different
reactions from the ROTC audience, perhaps the
most notorious being the playing of Taps while
parents presented an award on behalf of their son
killed in Vietnam. A student played Taps on a
trombone borrowed from the band performing
at the ceremony, and most observers thought that
it was a gesture of mockery. However, some
thought the music aimed to highlight the deaths
resulting from the war. A few observers even
thought the music was part of the planned
Governor’s Day program. Perhaps to quell the
disturbance, officials told the demonstrators that
they could have access to the microphone for the
rest of the day—but not until the ceremony was
over.

The demonstrators soon grew restless,
discouraged that nothing would be said during
the ceremony. A few students suggested that the

INTRODUCTION

protestors move to the field to interrupt the Sierra
Guardsmen drill team. The Guardsmen had by
then affixed bayonets on their rifles and were
marching about the field with various turns and
advances. The USA group on the field had been
calling out to people in the stands to join them,
and while Laxalt was crossing the track to deliver
an award, faculty monitors tried to keep students
in the stands. At that moment, Adamian left the
stands and headed toward the field by himself.

He would later be accused of rallying the
demonstrators to leave, and then leading them to
a dangerous situation, but he made no overt
gestures to do so. Instead, he allegedly led by
example. As Adamian has it, he just wanted to
join the USA group on the field because he had
been actively supporting their cause for the weeks
leading up to Governor’s Day. It’s also possible
that he was the first person to leave the stands
because the restless crowd needed direction, not
restraint. Although some faculty monitors
encouraged demonstrators to remain in the
stands, the protestors began to trickle out of the
bleachers and onto the field, encouraged by the
monitors to leave by ones and twos to prevent a
mob-like rush.

The growing protest group on the field soon
stood in the way of the marching units, blocking
their path. The monitors left the stands to prevent
conflict, and the entire situation became highly
tense as the two groups approached one another.
ROTC supporters were heard shouting from the
stands for the cadets to tear into the protest crowd,
encouraging the cadets to bayonet their way
through the crowd. Seeing the potential for
serious harm, several faculty monitors positioned
themselves between the protestors and the cadets,
hoping to fend off a clash between the student
groups.

As the armed units approached, the monitors
stood in considerable danger, but fortunately the
drill leader gave an impromptu command for the
cadets to perform a flank movement, marching
them away from the protest group. The cadets
did not break their formation despite the
harassment, which included one demonstrator
riding a unicycle through their ranks. Finishing

their performance, the drill team joined with other
groups of cadets and passed the reviewing stand
while marching out of the stadium. As the two
crowds exited the stadium, demonstrators
witnessed a display of force across the street:
thirty police officers with four squad cars, a
paddy-wagon, and several motorcycles ready to
intervene at a moment’s notice.

After leaving the stadium, roughly one
hundred members of the protest group returned
to the Manzanita Bowl to make some speeches.
During this gathering, a few ROTC cadets
disconnected the sound system, causing a minor
fistfight to break out, but little else happened.
Tensions remained high all day, and groups across
campus discussed the events at the stadium. By
the end of the day, plans were made to hold a
memorial service on campus later that week in
honor of the Kent State students.

Some saw the protest as a success, while
others were disturbed by the extremism generated
by the crowd. The confrontation on the field
lasted only a few minutes, and the entire
Governor’s Day demonstration—from the
motorcade to the stadium—lasted no more than
ninety minutes. This short, nonviolent protest
never moved beyond loud noises, and it was a
demonstration that had been given permission to
proceed at the stadium. However, many Nevadans
agreed with journalist Ty Cobb that Governor’s
Day was “the most disgraceful day in the history
of Nevada.”

First Salvo: Response

In the days that followed the protest,
Nevadans took notice and voiced their
disapproval. Citizens came down hard on the
campus, threatening officials with economic and
political sanctions, and demanding retribution.
Students, faculty, and staff tried to alleviate
campus tensions through dialogue, yet two fire
bombing incidents exacerbated the problems on
campus.

On Wednesday, May 6, media coverage of
Governor’s Day began to spread, generating
public hostility toward the Nevada campus and

XVI

INTRODUCTION

its administration. Radio KOLO repeatedly
broadcast an editorial that provoked reactionary
responses across the state. Stan Weisberger, vice
president and general manager of the station,
assured his listeners that a militant group of
students and some faculty had embarrassed the
governor and insulted the country by jeering
during the national anthem. Similarly, in his
regular column for the Nevada State Journal that
day, Cobb highlighted the most distasteful
elements of the protest, placing the blame on
faculty leadership: “It was an eye-opener to see
how a crowd is stimulated, with certain faculty
members—the ‘liberal professors’—infiltrating
their ranks and prodding them on to further
rudeness.”

Throughout the day, a few faculty members
organized meetings for students to contend with
issues surrounding the protest. In one afternoon
meeting, students and faculty argued about the
events and the growing negative response from
the community. Some students called for
immediate action, lamenting that the ceremonies
weren’t completely disrupted. Later that night,
roughly 300 students and some faculty crowded
into a room for a student senate meeting later
described as a “tense drama” between the
“cowboys” and the “longhairs,” in which the
senate discussed plans for a Kent State memorial
service and possible campus-wide strike at the
end of the week.

With sustained media coverage and growing
tension on campus, the administration was
worried about further outbreaks that could tip the
scales against the university. Miller’s office
aimed to calm the campus but keep matters within
the university’s control—and intervene with
force only if absolutely necessary. For example,
Edward Olsen, director of information for the
university, recalled that fire hoses in Lincoln Flail
had been prepared for crowd control in the event
of any physical conflict. Flowever, such drastic
measures were not needed. During the senate
deliberations, participants exchanged heated
words, but there were no indications of violence.
The only turbulence stemmed from four off-
campus activists who repeatedly voiced loud

remarks and generated some hostilities during the
exchanges but were not otherwise disruptive.
After the meeting, small groups met to discuss
issues regarding the war - and the response on
campus. The conversations continued until
shortly after 2:00 a.m., when word arrived that
Flartman Flail had been fire bombed.

Wine bottles filled with gasoline (i.e.,
Molotov cocktails) had been thrown through the
windows of the building, and within minutes a
patrolling officer noticed smoke, called in the
incident, and put out the small fires by himself.
Police Chief Bob Malone immediately called in
the FBI when he learned of the fire bombing, but
he was not completely surprised. Throughout the
day, Malone had heard rumors that something
destructive would occur on campus, and he had
even intensified patrols to scare off any would-
be revolutionaries.

Thursday morning’s newspapers carried
stories of the arson, and after Malone assessed
the damage (scorched walls and burnt desktop
items), he stated publicly it was the first case of
radical militant action in the university’s
history—although he did not know who started
the blaze or why. On campus, student radicals
dismissed the arson as stupidity and asserted their
platform of nonviolence, and rumors soon began
to spread about “outside agitators” who had been
vocal during campus meetings. The arsonists,
however, were locals: residents of northern
Nevada working in concert with university
students. They had earlier warmed the police so
the campus would be watched closely and the
firebombing would be quickly noticed and
controlled.

Unable to cover the story in time for the day’s
edition, the school paper (the Sagebrush)
appeared later that morning with a letter from
Miller and a formal statement signed by over one
hundred faculty and staff. Both documents
acknowledged the killings at Kent State. It was
the university’s first public response to the
tragedy, three days after it occurred, but in no
way was it a response to the fire bombing of
Hartman Flail. Nonetheless, campus activists and
their radical cohort were energized by the

INTRODUCTION

xvii

correlation. In accordance with the arsonists’
plans, the fire bombing threatened to polarize the
campus.

Recognizing the possibility of a divided
campus. Miller met with deans and various
faculty that morning to encourage everyone to
participate actively in as many group activities
as possible, including a candlelight vigil and
teach-in that night, as well as the memorial
scheduled for the next day. That afternoon a
major meeting at the JTSU involved all factions
of students. Although tempers flared, again, the
larger meeting broke into small discussion
groups, and with the aid of faculty, staff, and
administrators, tensions were eased, and students
were able to let off some steam.

In the evening, nearly 150 people met at the
Manzanita Bowl for a teach-in with 7 designated
speakers. The names of the 4 Kent State victims
were read aloud, followed by a 15-minute silence
and a series of formal speeches. A candlelight
vigil followed, with a crowd that had grown to
roughly 300 participants. Although some students
heckled the proceedings from a distance, the
event was otherwise peaceful. That night, as
ROTC cadets stood watch over Hartman Hall,
activists planned for the campus strike Friday
morning.

Second Salvo: Reassessment

While state officials and university
administrators were not pleased with the rudeness
on Governor’s Day, they had not issued any
serious condemnation of the demonstration—
until the fire bombing. Activity on campus was
now an issue of state, and national, concern. With
irate Nevadans and calls going out to federal
agents, Governor’s Day was imagined as a
catalyst, the source of escalating problems that,
unchecked, had resulted in violence. Media
portrayals and political statements conveyed the
impression that UNR was under siege. Governor
Laxalt now made public commentary about the
Governor’s Day protest as “infantile
exhibitionism” and railed against the “handful

of potential revolutionaries” out to shame the
state.

In local newspapers, Hug stated, “University
students who arc responsible for such activities
should be subject to strong disciplinary action.
Faculty who actively participate or incite
disruption of normal university activity or
violence should not be permitted to remain as
faculty members of this university.” He had
recognized faculty members during the protest,
and he had heard that one professor had openly
criticized the government and administration
during a class, using obscenities to do so.

On Friday morning. May 8, 1970, activists
set up picket lines at various campus entrances
and some 700 students didn’t attend class. A
memorial service at the Manzanita Bowl began
at noon, with a crowd of over 500 attending, and
the service consisted of readings, folks songs, and
prayers. A group of “cowboys” made a dramatic
entrance during the service as a show of force
and a symbolic display of good behavior—as a
lesson for the “longhairs.” Their presence
heightened tensions, but the service was finished
according to plan, without any conflict. William
Thornton, past president of the University
Alumni Association, announced the
establishment of an annual peace prize during
the memorial service.

While the campus strike unfolded in Reno,
the regents began their monthly meeting that
afternoon in Elko. During the two-day meeting.
Miller recounted campus events, fielding
questions from all present. Citing passages from
the university’s Code of Conduct, Hug called for
an investigation of two faculty members he
believed were prominent in the week’s
disruptions. He referred to one faculty member
who not only “encouraged the students to stop
the cars” which “endangered the lives of
students,” but also “led the students in raucous
and rude catcalls and had encouraged them to
disrupt the ceremonies.” Hug alleged that another
faculty member had conducted a class discussion
in very vulgar terms. He argued that both
professors should be terminated from the
university if they could not explain their conduct.

xviii

INTRODUCTION

After some discussion, a motion was carried
to investigate two instructors from the English
Department, “and any other faculty who may be
found to have been involved in violations of the
University Code.” Adamian was implicated in
the Governor’s Day protest, whereas Fred Maher
(a doctoral student who was also an instructor)
was identified as the teacher who allegedly used
foul language and criticized officials who held
positions of authority.

By the end of the weekend, voices from
across the state were at a fever pitch, demanding
action. Monday night. May 11, Senator James
Slattery appeared on television, suggesting that
the “cowboys” take matters into their own hands
and “clean up” the campus by driving out the
left-wing element themselves. For many
Nevadans, the Senator’s statements appeared as
a call for vigilante justice; for the radical activists,
Slattery’s comments provided the perfect
opportunity to amplify tensions on campus.

Several hours after Slattery’s comments were
televised, a fire bomb was thrown at the Hobbit
Hole while its residents were inside. The incident
was seen as an act of violence against the war
demonstrators that could have killed several
students. According to most reports, the students
who lived there had received threats in the days
prior, but no one was hurt in the attack.

The week-long efforts to generate dialogue
and foster understanding among the student
population never received media coverage, and
it was clear that some tangible action had to be
witnessed in order for the university to survive
the protests on campus. On Tuesday, just one
week after Governor’s Day, Associated Student
Union of Nevada (ASUN) President Frankie Sue
Del Papa appeared with Miller on local television
to plea for an end to the violence and request
that misinformation about campus events be
avoided at all costs.

The Board of Regents was facing public
pressure and the threat of removal from their
elected positions unless they showed a display
of control. Within days, state politicians made
public comments that the university could lose
funds as a result of the previous week’s events,

reiterating the earlier threats made by KOFO
radio. State Senator Archie Pozzi (R-Carson City)
warned that by January 1971, when the legislature
would be in session, “it will be appropriate to
take a fine look at what is going on at the
university.” According to the most vocal of state
politicians, if the regents couldn’t show by the
end of the year that they had controlled the
university, they’d likely lose their positions to
people who could.

The regents initially took action by clarifying
what was acceptable campus behavior and what
punishments could be expected for breaking
university rules. On May 21, Hug distributed to
his fellow regents a copy of “Interim Rules and
Disciplinary Procedures for Members of the
University Community, University of Nevada
System,” a set of temporary rules—related to the
recent events—to be adopted until a permanent
code could be developed.

Many of the items in the interim code were
already covered by the university catalog and
faculty codes, often in quite different language,
and this disagreement caused considerable
problems for faculty who were evaluating the
document. The Nevada chapter of the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP)
issued a letter to the regents, arguing that the
many aspects of the interim rules were covered
in other documents, and two sets would confuse
the issues “and succeed only in conveying an
impression that the Board is thinking solely in
terms of punitive responses.” Despite the outcry,
most of the deans approved the interim code, and
the regents approved the rules as an interim policy
until the December 1970 meeting, when a
permanent set of rules would be established.

In effect, the interim code would be law for
the rest of the year, ensuring that no other
Governor’s Day protests could occur. With such
a set of rules in place, it was likely that the campus
would remain quiet, at least until the 1971
legislature had begun. If the campus appeared to
be under control through December, Pozzi’s
threat to take “a fine look” at the university might
not materialize.

INTRODUCTION

XIX

While the summer brought no new activity
to campus, some developments went largely
unnoticed. The charges against Maher, based on
Hug’s allegations, were dropped when the
investigation was unable to produce any evidence
against him. In fact, the investigative agency
found that his students considered him an
excellent teacher, one who explicitly argued
against discussing the Vietnam War in his class.
Although Maher was not formally charged with
anything, he was quietly re-assigned to a position
as a research assistant, effectively removing him
from interacting with undergraduate students.

Reassigning a graduate student is a simple
administrative action. Removing a faculty
member from the classroom is another matter,
particularly a tenured professor. Nonetheless,
during a closed-door personnel session, the
regents suspended Adamian from teaching.

Paul Adamian

In October 1970, Adamian’s case went before
an ad hoc committee appointed by the university’s
faculty senate. The committee found that his
actions at the motorcade blockade did not violate
the university code. Furthermore, it concluded
that the evidence about the Governor’s Day
protest was so conflicting that it was impossible
to determine Adamian’s alleged leadership role,
especially considering that he was assuredly not
acting alone and that Miller and Hug had given
consent for the demonstrators to march at the
stadium. The committee recommended Adamian
be formally censured but not terminated from his
position.

Miller agreed with the committee, but in
November the regents returned the committee’s
findings and raised numerous objections. After
reviewing the case with these contested points
in mind, the committee reaffirmed its initial
conclusions.

In December, during another closed-door
personnel session, the regents decided to override
the decisions of both the faculty senate committee
and the university president. The regents, wanting
a more severe punishment than what was

recommended, fired Adamian from his tenured
position at the university. In essence, the regents
made their decision solely on their own
assessment of the situation, disregarding the
conclusions of a committee of scholars. With
Adamian’s firing, it appeared that the 1971
Nevada legislative session would have to save
their “fine look” at the university for another
time.

In his oral history, Chairman Hug had
explained the possible consequences of not
responding to community demands for some
punishment to be carried out at UNR: “If no direct
punitive action is taken, I think we would find
that we would have very few new programs
approved. The faculty raises would have a very
difficult time being passed. That benefits such
as pension or fringe benefits would be very hard
to come by. I think that we would find that our
building requests would be if not . . . they
wouldn’t be entirely turned down, but we would
be penalized in some way by not getting the
request.” It is difficult to argue what could have
happened if the regents had chosen to agree with
the faculty committee and the university
president. Perhaps the state would have levied
more severe sanctions against the university. It
is also possible the state legislators would have
found that their state’s university had handled
the events in the best way conceivable.

What became known as “the Adamian affair”
meandered through the court system for nearly a
decade. Adamian later filed suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, and the
case was reassigned to Las Vegas. In 1973, Chief
Judge Roger D. Foley ruled that the regents’
decision was based on a vague university code,
and he ordered Adamian reinstated with back pay.
That same year, a new university code was
established, depriving the Board of Regents of
the power to have absolute authority over
decisions to terminate faculty from the university.
In all decisions to follow, the university president
would have final say in such matters.

The regents appealed the 1973 decision, and
in 1975 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned Foley’s ruling, sending the case back

INTRODUCTION

to Federal District Court for review. In 1976. the
court then ruled in favor of the university, and
despite another appeal to the Ninth Circuit, its
decision was upheld in 1979. In May 1980, the
United States Supreme Court refused to hear the
case without comment.

Historicizing Governor’s Day

In the three decades that followed since
Governor’s Day, the protest has been written into
local history as a small episode in the Vietnam
War years. After all, to many observers it was
just one protest out of hundreds across the
country. In 1974, historian James W. Flulse
discussed Governor’s Day and the Adamian affair
in The University of Nevada: A Centennial
History. In 1975, anthropologist Warren L.
d’Azevedo provided a more detailed account of
these events in the context of his larger report,
American Indian and Black Students at the
University of Nevada, 1874-1974 (reprinted in
Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 41:4,1998).

Newspaper accounts were often biased and
sketchy. Courtroom testimony was focused
mostly on Adamian’s case. And aside from a few
photographs, there simply was no documentation
of the event other than eyewitness testimony.
Human perspectives, by their very nature, are
limited, but taken in aggregate form, they can
together provide a rich composite lens to view
history.

Thanks to the foresight of Mary Ellen Glass,
Kenneth Carpenter, and others involved with the
University of Nevada Oral History Program
(UNOHP) in 1970, over fifty individuals related
to the events were interviewed in the weeks
immediately following the protest. It was clear
that something important had just occurred in the
history of Nevada, and the interviews collected
in this volume speak not only of Governor’s Day,
but also the larger politics of the war, concerns
for the environment, reflections on higher
education, and speculations about the future.
Students, faculty, staff, and state officials together
offer a multifaceted lens with which to look at
this crucial point in Nevada history.

The interviews were intended to document
impressions, reflections, and arguments.
However, due to the investigations of Maher and
Adamian, there was some concern about the legal
ramifications of taped testimony regarding
Governor’s Day. Also, at the end of this volume,
Glass and her assistants provide a rare
collaborative interview with one another,
describing the origins of this project and
reflecting on the development of questions, the
selection of chroniclers, and the effectiveness of
their approach.

The transcribed oral histories supply the
puzzle pieces that reveal complexities we haven’t
been able to consider in detail. Due to the legal
battles over Adamian’s case, the tapes were put
into storage, untranscribed, until his case had
officially ended in 1980. By then, Governor’s
Day had little continued interest in public or
academic circles, so it remained an untapped
resource.

In 1998, with the support of Karen Gash
(University Archivist) and R. Tom King (Director
of the UNOHP), the oral history interviews were
transcribed, and I began the process of
assembling documents related to May 5, 1970
and everything surrounding it. In the years since,
I have also re-interviewed several of the original
chroniclers. Many were still at the university,
while others had to be located (extending my
fieldwork from the Pacific northwest to the Great
Plains). Almost everyone I asked was willing to
talk about the events, often with the same level
of sentiment recorded thirty years earlier. Without
these unique oral history recordings, the process
of inquiry would have been severely limited.
[These more recent interviews can be found in a
second volume published by the UNOHP,
Governor’s Day 1970: A Retrospective View. \

In the end, most Nevadans were satisfied that
they had kept things under control, tracing the
root of this activity to two men who participated,
and punishing just one of them for the actions of
over 400 people. The oral histories of Governor’s
Day 1970 testify for the need to record events
from multiple perspectives, from a wide variety
of people, in the wake of dramatic social events.

INTRODUCTION

XXI

The events surrounding Governor’s Day can
teach us lessons about the turbulence in our
country during the Vietnam years, prompting us
to rethink the political and economic forces that
shaped what we have considered history.

Brad Lucas
Fort Worth, TX

Paul Adamian

June 19, 1970

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed for this project?

I imagine because I was involved in the events
or the incidents which occurred on Governor’s
Day, and since that time I’ve become the focus
of a lot of attention about the events of that day.

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to go into Cambodia ?

Well, I was extremely disturbed by it. I sup¬
pose it was a combination of anger, despair, and
frustration that he would make such a move after
being elected on a platform of having some kind
of secret plan to bring the war in Vietnam to a
speedy close. It seemed to me that he was doing
precisely the opposite. Instead of toning down
the war, phasing it out, he was increasing the
military activities way beyond the realm, the
scope of the Vietnam War itself, and extending it
out into Indochina at large.

It seemed to me as though the kind of justifi¬
cation or rationale that he was using for going
into Cambodia was extremely weak and also ex¬

tremely dangerous. It suggested that if he felt that
he had the right to move in this particular way—
in what was essentially a unilateral decision—
then the whole constitutional safeguard against
the president himself declaring or controlling a
war - had been essentially discarded or run over.
Then the president and his military advisors had
essentially taken over not only the control of the
war - itself, but also of foreign policy in this coun¬
try, and were totally ignoring whatever constitu¬
tional restrictions there are on powers of this kind.
It seemed to me as though he were going con¬
trary to the wishes of a large number of people in
this country in terms of escalating the war, but it
also had, in my mind, dangerous implications for
the future, as well as for the immediate problems
or immediate moment.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

That’s difficult to assess. One would have to
speak with each individual, I suppose, but speak¬
ing personally, it was another frustration, along
with a number of other frustrations, which had
been gradually building up during the past

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

months. This is simply a guess on my part, but I
suspect that it had something to do with people
feeling powerless and helpless, and of having this
kind of feeling build up to the point where they
felt that they had to express themselves in some
way. They felt that they had to express themselves
in some dramatic way in order to impress people
with the extent and the depth of their feeling about
this, and with the extent of their frustration about
their helplessness.

It’s in some way vaguely related, I think, to a
feeling of despair—that is to say, a feeling about
the normal channels or the normal modes of ex¬
pressing oneself in opposition to such a thing
(which in the past may have consisted of some¬
thing like writing a letter to one’s congressman).
This sort of reaction, I think, doesn’t cany very
much weight with many people today, particu¬
larly younger people. Therefore, I think that the
frustration that was felt about the Cambodia in¬
vasion probably spilled over somewhat into the
more dramatic kind of expression which occuned
then on Governor’s Day. So, speaking personally,
I think it had something to do with my feelings
and my actions, and I suspect that it probably had
something to do with the feelings and actions of
many others, also.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country, also related to this Cambodia de¬
cision ?

If you are referring, for example, to the Kent
State incident, I would say essentially the same
thing: sadness, of course, but also anger, bitter¬
ness, frustration, and horror that this country had
turned its weapons against its own children and
was slaying its own children. Since that time I’ve
seen some films on television, and what it
amounted to was a kind of a confrontation be¬
tween a sizable number of the students on the
campus and the administration of that university.
And for that kind of confrontation to end up with
the National Guard firing into the student pro¬
testors is inexcusable on any grounds. Whatever
was occurring at the Kent State University cam¬

pus, there is absolutely no justification, no ratio¬
nale for that kind of action.

There have been some suggestions that the
troops themselves were fired upon by a sniper. In
the first place, I don’t really believe that. Sec¬
ond, even if that were the case, it still doesn’t
justify the kind of reaction that it got from the
National Guard. It’s difficult for me to make a
separation in my mind between the way in which
individuals in positions of power and authority
at Kent State University responded to the dem¬
onstrations and what President Nixon is doing in
Cambodia and in Vietnam. I see these as being
very much alike, and it comes down to a matter
of the way in which authority is responding to
the kinds of problems that they’re challenged
with.

It seems as though the response which is the
most popular now is one of suppression, which
can be executed in varying degrees. In a sense a
mild form of suppression might be, for example,
the expulsion of a student for protesting or for
disturbing the campus in some way. You can carry
the line from there all the way to Vietnam and to
the policies of our government in Vietnam, which
is the suppression of the popular will there by
sending in troops and by killing those with whom
they disagree or whose views are different.

So, there really isn’t any difference in my
mind between what occurred on the Kent State
University campus and what’s going on in Viet¬
nam. I think this is a very serious issue, a very
serious problem, and it’s going to continue to be
one as long as individuals in positions of power
insist on thinking that they can solve problems
by the use of force. All that this is going to do is
to create greater alienation, to foment more dis¬
turbances, and perhaps—and I don’t mean to be
paranoiac—eventually to lead us into a serious
revolutionary kind of crisis.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangements
made for the observance of Governor’s Day?

Well, I think that the activities of that day
should have been postponed or canceled. I don’t

PAUL ADAMIAN

think that the event should have been held at all.
I might go back a little bit beyond that and sug¬
gest that it’s disturbing to me that the Governor’s
Day activities on this campus consist, as far as I
can tell, virtually exclusively of some kind of
presentation by the ROTC, which makes it es¬
sentially a military day. I don’t see it as being
something which the campus as a whole was in¬
volved in. I think very few people . . . those who
are in one way or another involved with ROTC
(those who are in ROTC or perhaps their girl¬
friends or parents) are about the only ones who
attend that function, other than the officials, of
course, who are supposed to be there. So, essen¬
tially it’s a military day.

On the part of large numbers of people in this
country, the tremendous feeling of revulsion
against military strategy, military tactics, and the
use of force should have been enough to suggest
to those who were responsible for Governor’s Day
that it would have been a wise move for them to
have canceled the event, given the events imme¬
diately preceding (the invasion into Cambodia,
the Kent State University thing). It also would
have been appropriate to have canceled it in terms
of a kind of a gesture of sadness for the Kent
State University events, particularly. So, in my
view there wasn’t anything that could be done at
that event which would have justified holding it.
I think the only thing that should have been done
or that could have been done was simply to have
postponed or canceled it.

What was your reaction to the demonstration ?

There are a number of angles or aspects to
my reaction to the demonstration. First of all,
consider it in the context of the kind of violence
which is characteristic of this country. Consider
our foreign policy and our ways of dealing with
those groups in other parts of the world whose
views are different from ours: we deal with them
primarily through the use of force or subversion
through the CIA or some other governmental
agency. Given the way that the police in this coun¬
try respond to protest and to demonstration; given
the characteristically brutal treatment of individu¬

als and groups in this country who disagree with
agencies, with the government, and with individu¬
als in power; and given, on the other hand, tac¬
tics which have been used by various dissident
groups and individuals in order to dramatize their
disaffection, it seems to me that the demonstra¬
tion which occurred on Governor’s Day was re¬
ally a pretty innocuous thing.

Essentially all that it consisted of was a num¬
ber of people (and there have been estimates vary¬
ing between three to five hundred people) march¬
ing into the stadium, marching around the track
in the stadium a couple of times, carrying peace
signs, carrying antiwar signs, carrying signs with
various slogans of this type, chanting antiwar slo¬
gans, chanting peace slogans, and then going up
into the stands and continuing the chanting and
the slogans. This is essentially about all that it
amounted to. There were a few moments down
on the field when the ROTC was inarching around
when there was some tension between the ROTC
people and a group of demonstrators who were
on the football stadium grounds. But this is all
that it amounted to: some singing and some
marching, some chanting, some laughing, per¬
haps, and then some tension. As far as I know,
there was never any physical contact between any
individual or any groups, and this is about all it
amounted to.

So, placing it in the context of what seems to
be a kind of strategy for dealing with dissidents
on the part of our government at various levels
(including the harassment, assassinations, and
murders of various leaders of the Black Panther
Party ) this demonstration was really quite innocu¬
ous, quite innocent. It seems to me that the reac¬
tion which it has gotten throughout various fac¬
tions and levels in the state is almost incredible.
It’s difficult to understand. Well, it’s not difficult
to understand; it is understandable, but it’s still
incredible. The reaction is way out of proportion
to the event, to the incident the itself, and to what
actually occurred.

Now, as far as the demonstration is concerned
from the point of view of its being an expression
of feeling, I think it was very successful. I think
that people do tend to ignore what has generally

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

been called the normal methods or the normal
channels for expressing differences of view¬
points. And this, of course, has a lot to do with the
reason why the demonstrations occurred in the first
place.

It’s difficult to get any significant, serious re¬
sponse to legitimate demands when one goes about
them through what is ordinarily called the proper
channels. The proper channels have become ways
in which things can be drowned very quietly and
lost very quietly. Hence, there is little, if any, im¬
pact. There is little, if any, consequence. There is
little, if any, point to trying to express oneself
through these channels. It seems to me that if noth¬
ing else, the demonstration was successful in dra¬
matizing the depth of the feeling that a large num¬
ber of people had about the events that we talked
about, and of dramatizing the extent of the disaf¬
fection of a large number of people from the tradi¬
tional, conventional techniques and modes of ex¬
pression. So, 1 think it was very successful in that
way.

Now, I have rather mixed feelings about the
extent of the demonstration itself. I was saying a
moment ago that my impression is that the dem¬
onstration was really a pretty innocuous thing. I
hesitate to say this, because I’m aware of the im¬
plications of this, and these are, to me, tragic
implications. I wish it were not this way, and I
certainly wish that events were not such that I
felt this way, but I wonder if perhaps the demon¬
stration would have been taken more seriously,
in terms of the issues around which the demon¬
stration was centered, if perhaps there actually
had been violence. If the demonstration got the
kind of response that it has, then perhaps in order
to convince people not only that these issues re¬
ally need to be looked at, but also that individu¬
als are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to
focus attention on these individuals, perhaps
something even more dramatic than what oc¬
curred might have been desirable.

So, on the one hand. I’m sort of pleased and
grateful that there wasn’t violence, that no one

“Essentially all that it consisted of was a number of people . . . marching into the stadium, marching around the
track in the stadium a couple of times . . . continuing the chanting and the slogans. ” Governor’s Day demonstra¬
tion at stadium. May 5, 1970. Paul Adamian is at the left front in glasses and a jacket.

PAUL ADAMIAN

was hurt, because I don’t like to see anybody get
hurt. Anyone. On the other hand, it’s disturbing
how the issues that the demonstration was focused
upon have gotten lost in the kind of reaction that
the demonstration has gotten. Perhaps if some
blood had been spilled on this campus on that
day, people would have looked at it more closely,
thought about it more than they are doing. So, I
really have kind of mixed feelings about it.

On the one hand, I think it was very success¬
ful. On the other hand, because of the kind of
response that it’s gotten, I wonder really how suc¬
cessful it was. I wonder how far individuals or
groups have to go in order to convince people of
the seriousness of their concern and to dramatize
the issues which they are concerned with. It seems
as though unless some blood gets shed, or unless
somebody’s head is cracked, or unless there is
some serious violence of some kind, that the thing
just sort of gets lost in all of the—how can I put
it? [sighs]—in all of the superficialities.

Since that day, I haven’t seen or heard in any
of the local media any investigation into the rea¬
sons for the demonstration. I haven’t read one
newspaper account or investigation into the
causes or the reasons for the demonstration. I
haven’t seen anything on television. I haven’t
heard any comments. I haven’t heard any reports
on any of the problems here at the university
which might have had something to do with the
demonstration. All that the media has done, and
apparently all that the majority of the citizens of
Nevada have done, is to demand the expulsion of
students who have participated or the firing of
faculty who have participated. The Board of Re¬
gents and the legislature has reacted in a repres¬
sive way, making the same stupid mistake which
has been made time and time again on other cam¬
puses, and which apparently neither the legisla¬
ture nor the Board of Regents has learned any¬
thing from.

They seem to have the idea that all one has
to do in order to stop a kettle from boiling is to
put a lid on it. And it only takes common sense to
know what’s going to happen when one puts a
lid on a kettle of boiling water. This seems to be
essentially the reaction of those who are directly

within the university system or structure, the leg¬
islature, and a large number of people in the state
as a whole: simply to put a lid on things, so that
what occurred on Governor’s Day won’t occur
again. But the only way to guarantee that is to
remove the causes for what occurred on
Governor’s Day. The only way to do that is to
deal with the issues which gave rise to the dem¬
onstration on Governor’s Day.

One is not going to stop that kind of demon¬
stration, one is not going to stop that kind of pro¬
test by passing laws or coming out with some
sort of a university code which is going to punish
people for expressing themselves that way. Be¬
cause I’m certain they’re going to continue to
express themselves that way. Coming down in
this kind of repressive way is only going to cre¬
ate more tension, to create greater confrontation,
and perhaps then, to end up with a situation which
may not be that far different from Kent State
University. If that kind of thing occurs on this
campus, then I think it’s people or groups like
the legislature, like the Board of Regents, which
have to look at themselves and ask themselves
what their responsibility has been.

So, I’m very disappointed that the issues and
the causes have been obscured, have gotten lost,
and have been ignored. I’m disappointed that the
reaction has been all to the superficial aspects of
the demonstration. And I’m disappointed there
has been absolutely no penetration through the
surface events into the causes and the issues
which lie behind them—again, not by the media,
not by the legislators, not by the Board of Re¬
gents, not by the administration of this univer¬
sity. That’s been disappointing. So, I think from
that point of view, the demonstration was not suc¬
cessful.

How do you feel about the necessity of partici¬
pating in the demonstration ?

Well, I’m not sure I know what to do with
the term “necessity.” This is an individual thing.
Some individuals are satisfied with expressing
themselves through the conventional, the normal,
or the traditional channels. Therefore, to them, a

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

demonstration may not be necessary. Others feel
that these methods are no longer functional, that
they’re no longer meaningful, and that the only
way that one can express his views is by partici¬
pating in a demonstration of some kind.

I think we have to look at the question of why
so many people, and an increasing number of
people, find it necessary (to go back to that term)
to express themselves through demonstrations. It
seems to me that the answer is that they have good
evidence, and good reason, for believing that the
conventional and traditional modes arc no longer
meaningful and no longer really functional; there¬
fore, demonstrations are a necessity. But this, too,
is tragic. They shouldn’t be a necessity. There
should be no reason that an individual should have
to feel or should feel that he has to demonstrate
in some dramatic way to be heard, to have some
kind of impact, to have some kind of influence
on those who are in a position of making deci¬
sions. The normal channels should be open; they
should work. But the fact that they’re not then
makes demonstrations necessary in the minds of
a large number of people, and unfortunately an
increasing number of people. I think this is an
extremely serious, an extremely crucial problem.

What did you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration and of the Governor’s Day
observance ?

I don’t think there was any effective part. I
don’t think that either can be broken down into
parts. From my point of view, of course, the
Governor’s Day events themselves were obscene.
The very fact that it was held was obscene: the
presence of people, individuals. I noticed at least
two individuals among the dignitaries wearing
fezzes, or the caps, of their clubs that they be¬
longed to. I don’t know what they were, but some¬
thing like the Elks Club or whatever. And here
they were sitting in, I suppose, what is a review¬
ing stand or the reviewing area with these absurd
fezzes on. Given the context of this whole event,
wearing those fezzes, I think, just dramatizes just
how totally stupid, how totally ignorant, how to¬
tally unknowing these individuals are. It was just

to me a visible, dramatic indication of the ob¬
scenity of the whole thing. So, I can’t break that
down into parts.

The demonstration, I would say the same
thing: I can’t break that down into parts. It began
with a march from the bowl, with singing and
chanting, and it continued to be that essentially
until the very end.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various people involved up there—the dem¬
onstrators, the ROTC, the university administra¬
tion—to the conflicts that developed up at the sta¬
dium? Maybe some kind of a retrospective analy¬
sis of what would have made things better, if it
was bad.

What would have made things better would
have been that Governor’s Day was not held. That
would have made things a lot better. As far as
what occurred on that day is concerned, I really
can’t think in terms of what the reaction should
have been.

I think that we have a couple of slogans or a
couple of aphorisms (or whatever they should be
called) in this country. Oh, some things like,
“business as usual.” Another one that’s similar
to this is “the show must go on.” The idea, I sup¬
pose, behind this is that events go on, that life
goes on, that things—the daily routine of life—
somehow must go on regardless of the kinds of
disturbances which occur. And I can very well
understand this kind of thinking and this kind of
feeling in regard to certain situations, but I think
that we’re in a situation now where a large num¬
ber of people feel that we’re in a terrible crisis.
We’re in a situation where, for example, ecolo¬
gists are estimating that we have from thirty to
sixty years of life left on this planet and that sort
of thing. I think in the face of events of that kind,
or possibilities of that kind, that the idea of “busi¬
ness as usual” and the idea that “the show must
go on” is just insanity. It’s just insanity.

It’s like a man standing in the middle of a
road doing something with a truck coming down
on him at eighty miles an hour, and saying to him¬
self, “Well, you know—business as usual; the

PAUL ADAMIAN

show must go on,” and ignoring the truck. Well,
of course, what’s going to happen is that he’s
going to get run over. Well, a large number of
people feel that way. They feel that that’s the kind
of situation that we’re in. Therefore, to think in
terms of “business as usual” is, again, a kind of
insanity. It makes, then, the idea or the fact of
Governor’s Day being held an insanity, because
essentially what I suppose they were saying was,
“Despite what President Nixon has done in Cam¬
bodia, despite what has happened on the Kent
State University campus, the show must go on.
Business as usual.”

But these are events of such significant seri¬
ousness that business ought not to go on as usual,
and I think that, in effect, this is one of things
that the demonstrators were attempting to say:
“You, by insisting on having Governor’s Day, are
saying to us, ‘Business as usual.' By demonstrat¬
ing, by disrupting, by interrupting, by disturbing
the Governor’s Day activities, we are saying that
we think things are serious enough that we ought
to pause, we ought to stop and look and think
about these things, and we ought to direct our
energies toward these things instead of continu¬
ing on with ‘Business as usual.’”

So, in terms of what should have happened,
from the point of view of those who demonstrated,
I think that the demonstrations should have hap¬
pened. I think that the individuals who are at¬
tempting to say, “Business as usual; the show must
go on,” had to be told, “No, that’s not correct.
We should not be thinking in terms of ‘business
as usual,’ because these are not usual times; these
are unusual times. The show must not go on be¬
cause there are many more serious things to be
concerned with than the show. And when we’ve
arrived at that kind of condition, then we ought
to stop the show, and we ought to deal with the
problems.” I think this is what should have been
said to those people, and I think that this was what
was said to these people by the demonstrations.

So, yes, I think that this should have hap¬
pened. I think that the demonstration should have
happened. I think that whenever this kind of a
situation arises and the attitude is “business as
usual,” something should be done to dramatize

the other view: “No, we’re beyond the point
where we can simply think in terms of ‘business
as usual,’ and think in terms of this event or this
incident as passing and of things falling back into
some kind of routine of some sort. We’re beyond
that. We don’t have that kind of time, that kind of
energy to waste any longer.” So, no one should
get away with that kind of “business as usual”
sort of attitude anymore. And if it’s going to take
a demonstration to impress that upon them, then
that’s what should be done.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day: the fire bombing ? 1

Again, I feel sad that conditions are such in
this country that those in the position of power,
those in the positions of decision making, are so
far out of contact with those whom they’re sup¬
posed to represent that even such a thing as the
demonstration on Governor’s Day has to occur.
But given that kind of condition, it’s not all that
surprising to me that individuals may take such
actions as bombing buildings or destroying build¬
ings. My feeling about it is very mixed. Again,
as I said before, I don’t like to see anybody hurt.
I don’t like to see anybody killed. And in addi¬
tion, I don’t like to see property destroyed. On
the other hand, we have a very peculiar kind of
value system in this country which seems to place
a greater value on property than on human be¬
ings.

I could even relate this to the issue of civil
rights, for example. We can go back into the whole
problem of housing for minority groups in this
country, and the problems that blacks have had
and are still, of course, continuing to have in rent¬
ing a house, where a landlord values his property
more than he does the dignity of another indi¬
vidual human being. When it gets to this point,
my feeling is that I would rather see property
destroyed than human dignity destroyed. I would
rather see a building blown up than a human be¬
ing killed. When any human being is killed way
before his normal time of passing from this life, I
think there is an infinitely greater loss than when

governor’s DAY 1970

any object, when any piece of property, is in some
way destroyed or ruined.

It’s sad, it’s tragic, that we’ve produced a
nation in which we value things more than we do
people. But it seems to me that, again, in terms
of a way of dramatizing concern, it is usually more
effective to attempt to reach people through those
things which they value the most. For example,
if one wants to really reach a politician, one might
do something which would possibly lose the poli¬
tician votes. The politician would then be con¬
cerned about losing votes and then would per¬
haps act. A banker, for example, would be con¬
cerned about his bank losing money; then he
might act. The owner of a huge department store
might be concerned with losing customers; and
he may act. A university may be concerned with
losing buildings; it may act. If one analyzes the
situation and concludes that the only way in which
an institution can be moved into some kind of
positive action, and if the only way in which an
institution can be made to realize the seriousness
of a problem is to in some way affect that which
it values the most, and if that turns out to be a
building, then perhaps that may be one way of
getting an institution to concern itself with the
problems.

So, a building to me is a building. It’s made
out of inanimate things. It’s not made out of liv¬
ing things. It’s not a thing that breathes. It’s not a
human being. It’s not a thing that lives. It’s made
out of concrete and plastic and steel and wood
and whatever kinds of material. It costs money, I
know. But a building is something which can al¬
ways be replaced. A human being can never be
replaced.

Again, I’m sorry and saddened that condi¬
tions are such that individuals feel that the only
way they can move things is by attempting to
destroy a building or by bombing a building. But
at the same time it seems to me that we need to
keep our perspective about things and to realize
that these are just buildings and to think in terms
of what we’re doing, for example, in Vietnam in
terms of virtually destroying the whole country.
We’re practically killing off the Vietnamese.
We’re destroying their land with defoliants. We’re

poisoning their plants. And we’re destroying—
we’re virtually destroying a nation. We’re liter¬
ally destroying it. We’re literally wiping it out
from the face of the earth. A fire bomb on a build¬
ing, in comparison to that, is peanuts.

What category of participating in various affairs
of those weeks—the students, the faculty, or out¬
siders—do you think was most important in fo¬
menting violence on the campus?

I really have no idea, although the word “fo¬
menting” disturbs me a little bit. Again, from my
point of view, these events would not have hap¬
pened if those who were in a position of respon¬
sibility for the activities of Governor’s Day had
been sensitive to what had been going on and had
very appropriately called off Governor’s Day. If
they had called Governor’s Day off, then none of
this would have happened. So, I suppose if one
wants to talk in terms responsibility, the respon¬
sibility would have to be placed on the shoulders
of those who decided to continue on with “busi¬
ness as usual.”

Do you think outsiders were important?

I really don’t know. From my limited point
of view, I would say, “No.” I think I was vaguely
aware of the presence of a couple of people on
campus whom I think somebody pointed out to
me as being from off-campus. There were a
couple of people sitting around having coffee in
the student cafeteria one day, but I have no idea
who they were. I have no idea what they were
doing on the campus. They may not have had
anything at all to do with anything that was go¬
ing on during this time. I just don’t know. I sim¬
ply wasn’t aware of the presence of off-campus
people. I don’t know.

Somebody has told me since that time that
there were some high school students who par¬
ticipated in the demonstrations. Whether this is
hue or not, I really don’t know. I simply have
this one person’s word, and if it were true, I don’t
know how many participated. So, I really don’t
know anything about off-campus or non-univer-

PAUL ADAMIAN

sity people participating in it. But in terms of re¬
sponsibility, the responsibility is upon the shoul¬
ders of those who decided to hold Governor’s
Day.

What actions did you feel were most effective in
cooling off the situation after the fire bombing?

I think that the various meetings that were
held on the campus in the days following
Governor’s Day and the bombings had something
to do with preventing any further and any more
serious incidents from developing. I think the re¬
straint on the part of the great majority of people
on the campus had a lot to do with it, and I think
this is really rather amazing because it seems to
me there was a great deal of provocation, both
from within and from outside of the university
community.

Now, for example, from within the univer¬
sity community. I’m referring to a meeting that I
went to over in the agricultural building. The
room was filled, and a majority of the people in
there were people from the College of Agricul¬
ture, whose views tend to be conservative, who
tended to be in opposition to the views and the
thinking of the demonstrators, who tended to sup¬
port President Nixon’s policies, who tended to
be in favor of ROTC, and so on. I was asked to
attend that meeting, and I did. It was very dis¬
turbing to me when I went there, because it was
my understanding that this was to be a meeting
in which we were to discuss issues, to talk about
the problems which gave rise to these incidents.
We were to have an exchange of ideas about these
things and try to get together. In effect, what it
ended up being was an attempt by these people
to tell me and to tell others who had participated
in the demonstrations to either knock this stuff
off, or they were going to kick the shit out of us.
And that didn’t seem to me to be a very fruitful
kind of discussion. It was a very hostile kind of
discussion. There were a great many threats made.
One student publicly threatened to eliminate me.
He used that word—“eliminate”—and this was
very characteristic of the tone of that meeting. It

seems to me that their whole attitude was a very
provocative one. And it’s amazing to me that those
who participated in the demonstrations, whose
views tended to be sympathetic with those who
participated in the demonstration, didn’t react in
perhaps a violent way to this kind of attempt to
intimidate, attempt to suppress, attempt to
frighten.

So, it seems to me there was a great deal of
provocation for further incidents within the uni¬
versity community. There were provocations from
outside the university community. I’m thinking,
in particular, of Senator [James] Slattery, who
made what I think is a very stupid statement on
television. I can’t remember his exact words, but
in essence he encouraged the so-called cowboys
and the so-called Sundowners on this campus to
wipe the radicals off the campus. It seems to me
that if anybody is going to get arrested for incit¬
ing a riot, then Senator Slattery should have been.
It’s amazing to me, again, that violence didn’t
erupt after such a provocative kind of statement.

It’s a little bit difficult to say why things didn’t
go further than they did, because there are a lot
of reasons why they might have. I think it may
have had something to do with the atmosphere
on this campus. This is the biggest thing of this
sort that’s ever happened on this campus, as far
as I know. I think, in a sense, that it caught every¬
body by suiprise, and in a way it sort of fright¬
ened everyone, despite the fact (as I’ve said ear¬
lier) that the whole thing from my point of view
was really a pretty innocuous thing. Because Ne¬
vada has been untouched by this, it was a kind of
a big thing for a lot of people here, and I think it
kind of shocked them. I think the shock had a
tendency to kind of paralyze everyone. I think
that everyone felt that, you know, a really ter¬
rible, terrible, terrible sort of thing had happened,
and that no more should happen.

But I don’t really think that there was any¬
thing done in any kind of coherent way to attempt
to control, to attempt to tone down the mood af¬
ter these things happened. I think that people who
are in a position to do something about this ought
to think about this problem, because it wouldn’t

governor’s DAY 1970

surprise me if things were to continue as they are,
with further incidents of this kind occurring. And
if it’s going to be kept at a kind of minimum, then
some sort of organized, concerted kind of plan or
action ought to be thought about.

For example, there was some attempt to get
as many faculty members as possible around to
as many of these meetings on the campuses as
possible, with the hope that the presence of the
faculty would have a tendency to perhaps tone
down some of the rhetoric, perhaps tone down
some of the feelings. This may have had some
slight effect. For example, something like this
done in a more organized, coherent way might
not be a bad idea. But as far as I could tell, there
really wasn’t anyone who was doing anything in
any thought-out way to attempt to tone things
down. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a kind of
accident, in a sense, that nothing more than what
did occur didn’t occur. I think it was just sheer
luck. As far as I could see, there was no orga¬
nized or coherent way devised to deal with this.
As far as I know, not one single college-wide, for
example. Arts and Sciences-wide or university¬
wide, faculty meeting was called during this
whole period. As far as I know, no attempt was
made for the administration and the faculty and
the students to get together in any way, to discuss
what happened and to talk about things. As far as
I know, attempts were, you know, “Business as
usual.”

Classes sort of. . . went on. I know that many
faculty took time out in their classes to talk about
things, and perhaps this might have had some
effect. This might have had some value. I sus¬
pect that it did. But it’s amazing to me that the
administration of this university did not act in
any way, as far as I know, or as far as I can see or
was able to see. I know that President Miller went
on television, along with, I think, Frankie Sue Del
Papa (president of the ASUN) and made some
sort of statement calling for the toning down of
feelings. But the president did not call a faculty
meeting. There was no meeting of faculty and
students, no meeting of students and administra¬

tors, and no general meeting of any kind. And
this is standard. On any other campus where any¬
thing like this has ever happened before, people
have tried to get together. Classes have been
called off, or they’ve taken at least a day off and
called a general meeting or whatever. Nothing
like that was done on this campus.

My impression is that nobody knew how to
react to this, nobody knew how to handle this,
and nobody was prepared for this. It’s amazing
to me—we’ve had our history of what, five, ten
years now, of disturbances of this kind and worse
than this on college and university campuses
across the country. Apparently there was abso¬
lutely no preparation for anything like this on this
campus. To me, again, it’s an indication of how
much Nevadans are out of what’s going on, or at
least think they’re out of what’s going on in the
world, by how much surprise they were caught
by this. I suppose it has something to do with the
extent of their reaction, but it shouldn’t be a sur¬
prise.

Nevada happens to be one of the states in the
United States, which happens to be in the world.
It is foolish for Nevada to expect that things are
going to go on in the world without it affecting
Nevada, or for things to go on in other states or
other parts of the country and not go on or not
occur in Nevada. But apparently this is the way
that they were thinking, because I saw no evi¬
dence of any preparation or any understanding
of this.

So, I don’t see that there was really anything
done to help tone down things, to help control
things after the initial incidents or explosions. So,
again, I would go back to saying that it was sheer
luck that things didn’t go any further than they
did. Nevadans, in a way, ought to be downright
pleased with the students and the faculty on this
campus for that reason. But I’m sure they won’t
be, because they’re too blind to see it.

How do you think the events on campus affect
the university’s image outside—in the dealing
with this conflict on campus?

PAUL ADAMIAN

Well, apparently a great number of people in
the state, both public officials and individual citi¬
zens, were very much aware of the disturbance
and had very strong reactions to it. There was,
apparently, quite a strong reaction against those
who participated in the demonstrations.

I myself have been in a situation, a very odd
one, and this is perhaps wandering a bit, but I
was going on a picnic with some other people,
and we stopped at a restaurant in Reno and had
lunch. Two couples in the table right behind us
discussing the incident were referring to me by
name. We left there and drove down to Carson
City, and I stopped in Carson City to get gaso¬
line, and the gasoline attendant recognized me,
and we discussed events on the campus. We went
from there down to Grover Hot Springs, which
is, I think, just into California, south of Carson
City, and the lifeguard at the swimming pool there
recognized me, and again we discussed it. So, this
all occurred within a period of about two or three
hours. It’s amazing. Apparently, there was a con¬
siderable awareness, at least, of some sort of dis¬
turbance.

I think there was total ignorance as to what it
was all about, but there was some sort of aware¬
ness of some sort of disturbance occurring on the
campus and an extremely paranoid kind of reac¬
tion to it: editorials on television, on the radio,
and in newspapers. Individuals were screaming
for the expulsion of students and the firing of fac¬
ulty, were insisting if the Board of Regents didn’t
take such actions, the board itself be dissolved,
or if President Miller didn’t act in some signifi¬
cant way in these directions, that he be fired, and
so on.

So, the reaction on the paid of a great number
of people was apparently a very reactionary one
and a very suppressive one—a very hostile one. I
suppose that they were upset, of course, that what
they had been reading about in the newspaper
occurring on other campuses had occurred here,
or some vestiges or some signs of similar kinds
of things occurred here. They were apparently
very happy with a campus that’s asleep if not
dead, and very disturbed with a campus that has

any signs of life on it. And they would like to see
it go back to sleep as quickly as possible and as
soon as possible. Of course, their idea of the best
way to do this is to get rid of all the people who
show any signs of being awake. So, I’m sure that
in a sense, in a public relations sense, the image
of the university, you know, has been sort of dam¬
aged.

I have gotten any number of phone calls from
irate citizens who have been extremely hostile,
abrasive, and obscene in their language, in their
talking to me on the telephone. It’s very interest¬
ing to me that they keep on referring to them¬
selves as taxpayers of the state. It seems to me
that that’s almost getting to be kind of a right-
wing sort of slogan. It doesn’t occur to them that
I’m also a taxpayer, that I pay taxes as well as
they do, or I pay the same taxes that they do. But
the reaction was a very angry one, very angry
one. And this is disappointing, too: again, total
inability to get through the surface.

Even when I attempted to get into some of
these things with these individuals over the tele¬
phone, they would cut me off or just shout a string
of obscenities at me, threaten to kill me, threaten
to burn my home, threaten to shoot me with a
rifle some night, or something like that. This was
the kind of reaction that I got from these indi¬
viduals. I suppose this is typical of what might
be called a kind of a lunatic fringe. But I think
it’s only the extreme example of what was sort of
the general reaction to the university on the paid
of many people in the state.

I think that this is where a university is tested,
as far as I’m concerned. Regardless of whether
it’s a state-supported institution or not, the uni¬
versity has to determine for itself the validity of
what it’s doing, the humanity of what it stands
for, and to stick by this. From my point of view
it’s been rather disappointing to me to see how
the university, at various levels from the admin¬
istration on up, has tended to capitulate to the
lunatic reaction.

I think this is going to cost the university a
great deal, not only in the very near future, but in
the long run. For the legislature to threaten to cut

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

off funds to the university is an absurdity. It would
be comical. In a way I almost wish that the legis¬
lature would: it would be really very interesting
to see what would happen if suddenly they cut
off funds to the University of Nevada. For any¬
one at the university on any level, including the
administrative level, to be frightened by this kind
of insanity is incredible to me, just incredible.

What should the university be doing to focus on
those things?

The university should be doing much more
than it is in making the community aware of
what’s going on here on this campus. Public re¬
lations tends to be pretty phony. I have to say
something which is hearsay, and I realize that,
and this certainly should be taken into consider¬
ation. But an individual recently wrote an article
for Nevada Magazine , 2 1 believe, on the Univer¬
sity of Nevada or on the university system. I was
talking to another individual who knows the au¬
thor quite well or who knew the author quite well
at this time. And I had happened to see the article
and was interested, of course, in it and quickly
looked at it, and it struck me as being just a lot of
bullshit. It was just a lot of out-front stuff about
things which were just entirely superficial, and it
painted a very rosy sort of picture about the Uni¬
versity of Nevada at Reno and also at Las Vegas.
I made some remark about this to the friend of
the author, and I expressed my disappointment
about the article. The friend said that the author
had told her that he had gotten into some of the
problems that the university system was having
and had gotten into some of these issues, but these
sections had been edited out of his article.

Now, this is the kind of thing that the public
gets. So, they read their magazine like this, and
they say, “Oh, this is a beautiful campus, and it
has nice green grass, and it has interesting red
brick buildings. It has trees on it, and it looks
very nice. There’s a pond out there, and there are
ducks in the pond, and that’s nice. And every¬
thing is very sweet and very beautiful.” They have
absolutely no idea what’s going on. I think more

could be done in letting them know what’s going
on and having the courage to let the community
know that the university has problems. I don’t
think that anybody has to be ashamed about that
or embarrassed or feel badly that problems exist.
They exist all over. Let the public know that there
are problems to get the kind of help, perhaps, that
might be valuable from the community in help¬
ing to solve some of these problems.

In addition. I’m disturbed at the fact that, for
example, the Board of Regents—which has vir¬
tually god-like powers over the university—prob¬
ably really doesn’t have any idea what’s going
on in the classrooms. I wonder, for example, when
the last time was that any member of the Board
of Regents spent some time sitting in a class. I
wonder when the last time was that any of them
took a course at the university. I wonder when
the last time was that any of them really sat down
in a really loose, informal, really relaxed way (and
not a phony set-up kind of way) and talked to
students on this campus about what’s going in
their classrooms, what they’re concerned about,
what they would like to see changed, the kind of
improvements that they would like to see occur,
or perhaps the complaints that they have about
me as a teacher. How much do they know about
what’s going on? I suspect really very little.

They hold a meeting at this place this month,
and another place next month. The president of
the university goes, and a few individuals like
that. I suspect that their contact with the students
and the faculty on this campus is virtually nil, yet
they’re sitting up there and making decisions
which affect what goes on in classrooms. So,
things of this sort, I think are their responsibility:
the courage to be more honest about problems on
the campus, and the greater effort on the part of
individuals. It’s really their responsibility, since
in one way or another they volunteered or asked
to take on this responsibility, for example, on a
Board of Regents, or on the education committee
in the legislature, or on committees which have
anything to do with allocating funds to the uni¬
versity or whatever. I think a part of that respon¬
sibility is knowing what the hell is going on on

PAUL ADAMIAN

this campus, and I think that they’re failing that
badly—very, very badly.

I think that the university could do more in
terms of communicating to Nevadans the issues
which are serious concerns to Nevadans, but also
go out beyond Nevadans. I’m talking about, for
example, the whole ecology thing that people are
into now. Certainly, there’s stuff on television
about it by the national media and so on. But I
think that the university ought to communicate
to Nevadans the concern that students have about
this sort of thing, or the concern that students have
about President Nixon’s policies in Cambodia.
In other words, let the community know that we
have a group of people here who—despite the
fact that they are your sons and daughters—do
not necessarily feel and think about things the
way that you do as their parents. The university
should not try to hide the fact that these differ¬
ences exist, and not try to fool the public and fool
the parents.

I think the university does this not by any¬
thing that it says, but by what it does not say. I
think the university does this by fooling them into
thinking that the university is bringing the chil¬
dren of these parents here in order to train them
to think the way that their parents do. I think this
is what a lot of parents expect at the university:
that they’re going to send their children there,
and that their children are going to come out of
the university, and that the university, in this four-
year period, will have worked with these students
in such a way that they come out thinking the
way that their fathers and their mothers do. What
happens is that the students come out not think¬
ing and feeling the way that their parents do, and
the parents are shocked, and they say, “What’s
going on up there?” Well, there’s a lot going on—
not only here, but in the state, in the country, in
the world as a whole. And I think it’s a university’s
obligation not to hide these things, but to bring
these things out into the open, and not to talk in
just sort of generalities or nice terms or what¬
ever, but to make it clear to Nevadans that things
are changing, and they’re changing in many ways
that are very unpleasant.

The ways of thinking about things are chang¬
ing; the attitudes toward things are changing.
They’re going to be extremely disappointed if
they think that their kids are going to come here
and come out of the university thinking and feel¬
ing about these things the same way that their
mothers and fathers do. Of course, this is pre¬
cisely what happened, because in one way or an¬
other they sort of find out: some kids come home
on vacation, or they get letters from their kids, or
something like this demonstration occurs, and
they realize that, wow, it isn’t, you know, what
they thought. Well, that should never have oc¬
curred. They should have had a pretty good idea
of what’s going on, or what might occur, or what¬
ever. I think the university could do an awful lot
more in this way than they have.

I frequently read in the local newspaper about
some speaker appearing at a dinner of the Elks
Club, or whatever, and talking about this and talk¬
ing about that. It’s always somebody like the com¬
manding general of the National Guard, the di¬
rector of the draft system in the state, or some¬
body like [Bill] Raggio—somebody like that. I
wonder if any of these groups have ever asked
faculty members to come and talk to them about
what’s going on up at the university, what they’re
doing in their classes, what their students are in¬
terested in, and what they’re concerned about.
Why don’t they ask them? You know, why is it
always somebody outside like that who frequently
tries to tell them about what’s going on at the
university, or what the university is supposed to
be about? Why don’t they ask somebody who’s
here? Why don’t they ask somebody who’s in
contact with students every day in classes and in
the cafeteria or in meetings and whatever? Why
don’t they invite people like that to come to their
meetings and talk to them?

So, I think it’s a two-way thing. There’s a
great deal more that the university could be do¬
ing. I think there’s a great deal more that the com¬
munity could be doing. I mean, I think they could
be reaching out, too. I don’t really see any signs
that they have been. Whatever happens, it seems
to happen as a kind of temporary thing as a result

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

of some kind of explosion. Then there’s a kind of
a flurry of meetings and a flurry of get-togethers
and a flurry of discussions, and then the tendency
is for these to peter out and to die. They ought to
continue.

In addition, the news media in this area ... I
know, for example, that at various times the local
newspapers here run series which will continue
for a week or two on what’s going on at Lake
Tahoe or on the problems with Pyramid Lake.
But as far as I know, in the four years that I’ve
been here there hasn’t been any continuing or
extensive series of an investigation into what’s
going on at the university—you know, interviews
with people, students, faculty, administrators, and
so on. I think the media could do a lot more than
they have.

I also think it would be helpful to see a greater
representation on the various levels of decision¬
making which affect the university. For example,
I would like to see the presidents of the faculty
senates of both campuses as regular members of
the Board of Regents. I think it would also be
wise to include the presidents of the student bod¬
ies of both campuses as regular members of the
Board of Regents. What we have now on the
Board of Regents are a bunch of businessmen.
There’s no one there who speaks for the univer¬
sity who can talk from the university point of
view, who can talk from the point of view of a
faculty member, or who can talk from the point
of view of a student—and to have the power to
vote from that point of view.

I think that members of the university ought
to be included on committees in the legislature
which are concerned with the university in vari¬
ous ways. If they were to ask members of the
university whether, for example, they would like
to see as much money being spent on keeping the
grass green at the cost of perhaps books for the
library, they might get an interesting response. I
would rather see a lot more books in the library
and a lot less grass out on the lawn. But who says
that to them, you know? So, how much do they
really understand about how people feel? I think
this is all a paid of the relations and the kind of

relations which have to exist if we’re going to
have a really good school.

So, everybody’s failed. I suppose I failed, too,
you know. I should have been making more of an
effort than I have. But it’s difficult. I suppose
everybody gets sort of involved—you get in¬
volved in your teaching, you get involved in all
the other things; and you get to the point where
you have the feeling that the American Legion
really isn’t going to listen to you anyway, so why
even ask if you can come and speak?

Do you think that issues of academic freedom
were involved in participating in the demonstra¬
tion ?

Oh, yes, very much so. Well, I’m not even
sure. I don’t know what term I would give it. I
don’t even know whether I would give it the term
“academic freedom.” As far as I’m concerned,
first and foremost. I’m a human being. After that.
I’m a man. After that. I’m an American citizen.
After that, I’m a teacher. After that. I’m a citizen
of the state of Nevada. And we could just go on.

First of all, I’m a human being, and that gives
me the right to be concerned with any issue that
affects me as a human being, including my life. I
don’t think that there’s any time when my con¬
cern from this point of view may have some con¬
flict with my concerns as a professional indi¬
vidual, that I would not choose to go in the direc¬
tion of my human concerns. Nor do I think (and
this is perhaps where the issue of academic free¬
dom may enter) that any individual ought to be
punished for pursuing his interest and concerns
as a human being by being deprived of a liveli¬
hood. This is, in effect, what happens when a
person is fired from his job. Of course, that’s a
pretty serious penalty or price to pay. So, I cer¬
tainly think that when it comes to the kinds of
issues that we’ve been talking about, all the way
from the national to a local level, the individual
ought not to give up. When ways of attempting
to do something about these issues are restricted
or repressed or lost or blocked, the individual
ought not to give up, but to continue to tty to find

PAUL ADAMIAN

some kind of action that will express his concern
or feelings about issues that concern us as hu¬
man beings, that concern our fellow man, that
concern our children. I don’t think he should be
punished for it.

It’s kind of a very strange situation, it seems
to me. It has a number of angles. It’s like ringing
a bell and having a dog come because he associ¬
ates the ringing of the bell with eating, with food.
Then, continuing to ring the bell, but not giving
the dog any food, and then eventually, of course,
the dog would probably stop coming, would stop
answering the bell. Any individual who contin¬
ues ringing a bell says, “Well, see? You know,
I'm continuing to ring the bell, but you know, the
dog isn’t coming, so it’s not my fault.” That’s the
kind of situation we’re in. In terms of the con¬
ventional ways of expressing oneself, they’re
meaningless. I think that both the Constitution
and the Declaration of Independence give us a
great deal of support for taking unconventional
actions when the conventional have been shut
down.

So, I think it’s an issue that goes really be¬
yond academic freedom. One might almost call
it human freedom. I don’t know what. But I’m
concerned with the quality of my life. I’m con¬
cerned with the quality of the lives of other
people. I’m concerned about the quality of the
life that my children will be growing up into. And
if I can do something which can help that. I’m
not going to be prevented from doing it because
some member of the Board of Regents may be
upset by it.

I may not be really very polite in what I do. I
may be impolite. I will be impolite. And when an
individual behaves in such a way that perhaps
isn’t very polite, or perhaps which isn’t very pleas¬
ant, or perhaps which isn’t in what might be called
good taste, his livelihood can be taken away from
him. This means that a person’s job can be used
as a way of controlling him, as a way of control¬
ling his thinking, and as a way of controlling his
actions. If he’s constantly under the fear of the
threat of losing his job because he might say
something which is going to disturb somebody,

or he might do something which is going to dis¬
turb somebody, we’ve gone into the era of thought
control. And I’m afraid that that’s the direction
in which we’re going.

Speaking personally for myself, I would
never permit that to happen to myself. If I were
to be fired from the University of Nevada, either
I will find a job in another university, or if not
that, I will sell used cars, or I’ll beg on the streets,
or whatever. I’ll survive somehow. The freedom
of my mind is much more important to me than
the quality of the material things that I have
around me or the amount of my monthly income.
There isn’t anything that you could offer me
which would be worth the price of my freedom. I
would hope that all individuals would feel that
way.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally? Should they try to influence?

Oh, yes, definitely I think they should be. I
think every individual should be as active as he
can, whatever his point of view may be. I think
students and faculty have a certain advantage,
perhaps, over many other individuals in that they
tend to be in a situation where they are aware,
are made aware, or become aware of issues and
problems and of what’s going on because of
what’s occurring in classrooms, the books they’re
reading, and the things that they’re discussing.
So, they have that advantage over, perhaps, many
other people. They also have a certain advantage
in that they’re a fairly sort of organized group,
however loosely, and they do have means of com¬
municating with one another fairly easily and
quickly. So, I think that not only should they be
concerned and active politically, but I think that
if they want to, they can be very effective this
way.

We’ve already seen some evidence of this in
the kind of support in the recent past that indi¬
viduals such as Senator McCarthy and Bobby
Kennedy got from students and the effectiveness
of that kind of support. I’m all in favor of that; I
would like to see that continue to increase. I would

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

even like to see colleges and universities take
some time off from their routines, perhaps even
a period of a week or two just prior to elections,
and allow individuals to go out into the commu¬
nity and to participate in the whole political or
electoral process in whatever way they feel best
and for whatever candidate they wish. I think this
would be an excellent educational opportunity,
and it would be really getting into something that
ought to be a very valuable part of us as Ameri¬
cans, but which so many people have become
disappointed in and disaffected from.

If you’re going to get younger people and
perhaps even the intellectuals, in a sense, back
into the system as it was or was supposed to have
been, one of the best ways would be to encour¬
age as much participation in it as possible. If po¬
litical figures are going to tell us constantly that
this is the way to do things, then I think efforts
ought to be made to give us the opportunity to
get into this way as much as possible. So, I would
go so far as to suggest canceling classes for a
couple of weeks and doing whatever to encour¬
age both students and faculty—everyone—to get
involved. I would like to see companies (mar¬
kets, supermarkets, drug stores, department
stores) do this. I would like to see them give their
employees time off and rotate their employees in
such a way as possible so they can get involved.

Because of the nature of their involvement
in their daily activities, I think students and fac¬
ulty are in a rather unique position in that they
are very sensitive and very much aware of what’s
going on. Speakers come to the campus, for ex¬
ample. Students discuss these things in a politi¬
cal science class, a sociology class, or perhaps
even English classes (who knows?), and so on.
So, they have these things on their minds all the
time. They have some idea of what’s going on.
They have some idea of the issues. Hopefully,
they’re learning how to understand issues, how
to distinguish between real and false ones, how
to really understand what politicians are saying,
how to really understand the implications of the
things that they are suggesting, and so on. So, I
think that they would be excellent people to get
involved in the political process. If that would

have happened, and if it were to work, then no¬
body would have to worry about the kind of thing
that occurred on Governor’s Day.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is going now?

I don’t think it’s going anywhere. There is
really no organized peace movement. There isn’t
anything in this area that I would even call a
movement. I don’t think there is a peace move¬
ment. I think some signs or some indication of
this is in the way things occur on a kind of inci¬
dental sort of basis. So, something happens: Presi¬
dent Nixon announces sending troops into Cam¬
bodia. There is concern, and people get together.
And there’s a demonstration, or maybe flyers are
put out, or speeches are made, or something like
that. And this lasts for a period of time, then it
disappears. Now, talking about a peace move¬
ment, I’m thinking of something more permanent
than that. A peace movement would perhaps have
a building with offices in it, with a telephone,
with files, with a printing press, and so on, and
would be doing something every day. There’s
nothing, as far as I’m aware of, that comes even
close to that in this area. So, as far as I’m con¬
cerned, there is no peace movement.

I think there are some possibilities of one
being organized next fall, assuming that condi¬
tions in Vietnam, Cambodia, or whatever, are such
that they demand this kind of movement. Then I
see the possibilities of one forming and organiz¬
ing in this area. But I don’t think there is one
now. There is a kind of core of people who are
interested in this, but they haven’t been organized.
Again, I think it has something to do with the
kind of isolationist sort of feeling that Nevadans,
including many students, faculty, have. I suspect
that that’s disappearing somewhat. So, it wouldn’t
surprise me to see something more organized get
going in the fall. I think it has that potential, but I
don’t think there is any such thing at the moment
at this time. There is a possibility of making some
contacts with groups which have been working
at this for some time now in other parts of the
country and getting help from them—perhaps

PAUL ADAMIAN

getting material from them and so on. And if such
contacts are made, then something of a more per¬
manent kind of activity or group might develop
in the fall.

Do you have any other comments you ’cl like to
make about this whole situation?

I think I’ve perhaps touched on most of the
feelings I have, at least at the moment, about a
lot of the questions that you’ve asked. I might
say again it’s very disappointing to me that this
state has, in effect, responded to what occurred
on Governor’s Day with a kind of a witch hunt.
There are two people who are in the process of
being judged as to their fitness or whatever to
continue working here at the university. I am one
of them. It’s disappointing to me that the state
thinks that by possibly firing me or the other in¬
dividual or both of us, it can solve the problems
here. It’s a kind of a response which has not
worked elsewhere. It’s not going to work here,
whatever happens to me as an individual.

I think this is essentially the function of a
very bad, very poor understanding of events in
the world today, the feelings on the part of young
people about these events, and the role that a uni¬
versity plays and must play if we’re going to sur¬
vive. We can’t get by with a kind of institution
that was valuable and helpful and useful and func¬
tional in the nineteenth century. This is what we
have around today for the most part. We’ve got
to make some rapid changes, and we’ve got to
have people who are willing to make these
changes and perhaps to take a certain amount of
risk in the changes that they make—perhaps even
to make a certain amount of sacrifice in the
changes that they make. But we’re finished, we’re
through, if people are going to insist on having
outmoded institutions to deal with the problems
that we have. We’re finished if we have individu¬
als who insist that the function of the educational
system is to get the individuals to adjust to soci¬
ety. And we’re finished if individuals as parents
insist that their children think, feel, behave, and
act the way that they did when they were their
children’s age.

Along with many other people, I know I re¬
ally feel tremendously aware of time—that time
is running out. In fact, we’ve been told that time
has already run out. I refuse to accept that, be¬
cause if that were true, then there wouldn’t be
any reason for any of us doing anything other
than what each of us would like to selfishly do. If
we’ve only got thirty more years to go, why even
fool around with retirement policies and life in¬
surance policies? Why even fool around with
education? Why make plans about anything? Why
have children? Accepting that as a kind of death,
it may be unrealistic in a sense to refuse to ac¬
cept the idea that we’re finished, but I refuse to
accept that idea, because as soon as we do accept
that idea, we just stop. And then we really arc
finished. I'd like to think that we can still do some¬
thing to turn away from the direction in which
we’re going, but I feel as though we don’t have
the kind of time that we may have had at one
time before the problems we’ve become aware
of. We don’t have a hundred years to sit around,
and this makes for a feeling of pressure: that
things must be done, must be done quickly, must
be done soon. This has a lot to do with the kinds
of disturbances which occur, and it seems as
though people never really seem to do anything
unless they have a sense of an emergency exist¬
ing.

I remember that I was told a story that there
were some people in London, England, who
wanted to get the children from the poorer sec¬
tions of London out into the country on a week¬
end day for a picnic or whatever. They went to
the authorities in the city of London and asked
them for their help in doing this, and they were
told that it couldn’t be done. So, it never was done.
Then during World War II, when there was the
threat of a bombing of the city of London by the
Germans, all the children from the city were
evacuated from the city in one day. So, when
people get a sense of emergency, they can do
things. They can do things which seem to be im¬
possible. A lot of these demonstrations and dis¬
turbances are trying to give precisely this sense
to people: that we are in a crisis situation, that it
is an emergency, and that they need to act quickly.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

It’s the failure on the part of a majority of
people to see this, to understand this, which is so
sad, and this failure is also responsible for the
continuing sort of escalation of violence which
occurs. You do something; you write a letter; it
doesn’t do any good. So then, maybe you tty a
telephone call, and that doesn’t do any good. So
then, you get five people together to write a let¬
ter, and that doesn’t do any good. And you get
this constant kind of escalation. The next thing
you know, you’re participating in a demonstra¬
tion on Governor’s Day. And if that doesn’t work,
then what?

So, again, who’s responsible? I think the re¬
sponsibility lies on the people who fail to respond,
who keep saying, “That isn’t enough to move me.
You’ve got to come up with something more.”
All right. Then you come up with something
more, and then you get slapped down for it. So,
you do a little bit, and that’s not enough. You try
more; that’s not enough. You try something un¬
usual, and all that gets is repression. In the mean¬
time, the time passes: another day passes, another
week passes, another month, and another year.
And we’ve lost that much more valuable time.

So, all this has to do with a sense of frustra¬
tion, a sense of an emergency, a sense of a crisis,
a sense of a need for immediate action. People
aren’t willing to accept the idea that nothing can
be done, that it costs too much, that there isn’t
enough money, or whatever. I still feel, and I still
believe—and many others whom I know feel as I
do—that if people would get together and direct
their resources, their abilities, their thinking, and
their minds, they could deal with any kind of prob¬
lem. This is all we’re asking for, and I think in a
sense this is all that the people who participated
in that demonstration were asking for: let’s stop
killing one another; let’s stop fighting one an¬
other; let’s stop losing a sense of what life is all
about by becoming involved in matters which are
really ultimately not that important; and let’s get
together and work on those things that arc. The
response to this has been, “Expel them. Fire
them.” And the sad thing is that this is suicidal:
the people who respond this way are committing
suicide, and they don’t even know it. But the only

thing that an individual can do is to keep on try¬
ing as best as he knows how, and however badly
that might be, to awaken people to this fact.

Notes

1. Following the Governor’s Day demonstrations there
were two firebombings on or near the University of
Nevada campus. In the first incident, three Molotov
cocktails were directed at Hartman Hall, where the
ROTC was housed. Not long after, a similar incident
occurred at the Hobbit Hole, a house frequented by
students involved with the peace movement.

2. David W. Toll “The Universities: Tuning with the
Times.” Nevada Parks and Highways Summer 1970.

Elizabeth Anderson

May 29, 1970

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

I don’t know, except that I was there first¬
hand and saw things firsthand as far as the dem¬
onstration was concerned. And I was pretty mad
about it. [laughter]

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to go into Cambodia ?

Well, after serious thought, I think he’s right.
I think it’s stupid to have a war and send the boys
over there, and you don’t put the whole strength
of the United States behind them. Either get out
or finish it, as far as I’m concerned. In Cambo¬
dia, they were running back and forth over the
line. I think he’s right. I think he’ll shorten the
war.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

I don’t think it had much to do with it. I think
they’ll find an excuse anyway to do something. I

think it was there; it was a convenient vehicle for
them to scream about. I’m firmly convinced these
kids are the ones that aren’t making it in school. I
think the majority of them aren’t from profes¬
sional schools. They don’t have enough to do,
and they just want to rabble-rouse.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodia decision?

You mean as far as politicians are concerned,
or the students on campus?

Well, the other parts of the country where this
kind of disturbance began to take place. What
was your reaction to that?

Well, my reaction’s the same as it was here. I
think it’s a planned organization. I don’t know
who they are, but disruptive elements through the
country are being supported by a foreign power—
maybe they don’t think so—of misguided wealthy
people in this country. They’re sending these
people out a few to each campus to start the riots
and stir up the kids. I don’t think the kids know
what they’re doing. I really don’t. I think they
just, “Hop on, wow, whoopee, whoopee!” You
know, it’s more of a party to them, and the other

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

half—they don’t have enough maturity to know
what they’re doing.

Going now to the Governor’s Day: what did you
think of the arrangements for the obseryances?

Of course, it’s always easier to look back now,
but knowing what I know now, I think it should
have been restricted to invitations only or fac¬
ulty people that could show their cards. There
were quite a number of kids here that were not
associated with the campus. One of the colonel’s
co-eds at lunch that day told me that she saw sev¬
eral kids that were dropouts when she went to
high school in Reno. They were here as nineteen-
and twenty-year-old bums (I don’t know what
you’d call them) from downtown, saying,
“There’s a rumble out at the university. Come on,
let’s go.” That sort of thing.

There were I don’t know how many people
from out of state, but there were a couple I know
from Berkeley, because I’d spoken to one of the
participants at those Tuesday night meetings. He
wanted to know who the people were that were
speaking. He asked, “Who’s this guy?” And it
was Jim [Anderson] speaking.

I said, “Good heavens! Don’t you know the
deans on campus?”

He says, “Hell, no! I’m not from this univer¬
sity. I’m from Berkeley.” So, I noticed he was
there marching and rabble-rousing at Governor’s
Day. Now, how many more, I don’t know.

Well, then, what was your reaction to the demon¬
stration as opposed to the observance?

I was mad. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t
believe that they had any business doing what
they did at all, even marching around. If I had
been president, they wouldn’t have marched
around the grounds as they did. Now, Edd Miller
is a kind gentleman, [laughter] and he let them
go around twice. But I think there should have
been strict instructions that after they’d gone
around twice, they were to march out of the sta¬
dium. It certainly got out of hand there.

I went up into the stands to talk to some of
them, and I don’t know whether I should men¬
tion names, but there’s one that’s quite a ring¬
leader whose parents were on campus. And I
asked him, “What the heck do you think you’re
doing?” I said, “Stop this stuff! You’re one of the
ringleaders.”

He said, “I can’t. It’s out of hand. What do I
do?”

I said, “Well, just remember this next time
you try and start something. And after all, we were
good enough to stand and watch you people go
around two or three times around the track and
come into the stands. Now, at least you can give
the governor and the president the courtesy of
being quiet. After all, we’re not here to see you. I
wouldn’t walk across the street to see those filthy,
unwashed bodies. I’m not interested.”

“Well,” he says, “we have our rights.”

I said, “Yes, and I have mine. And you’re
treading on my rights, and I object to it.” But you
see, they have no answer for this. They turn off.
They talk about communication. Well, this is fine
as long as you are listening, but as soon as you
start to talk to them and point out various things,
if they can’t answer your questions, they say,
“Hide behind the Vietnam War. Oh man, you
don’t know where it’s at in the Vietnam War - , see?”

You did feel that it was necessary, though, to par¬
ticipate in the activities for Governor’s Day.

Oh, certainly, yes. I think we should have
honored the boys. It was the honoring the boys
of the ROTC. It’s almost more or less a volun¬
tary thing on this campus now, and I think they
have just as many rights as these radicals. In fact,
more so, and I would fully support them, any¬
way.

What did you feel was the most effective part of
either the demonstration or the Governor’s Day
obseryance—or both ?

Oh, my. Well, we were all so disturbed. I think
the giving of the Governor’s Medal was effec-

ELIZABETH ANDERSON

tive, and as far as I'm concerned, the singing of
the “Star Spangled Banner”—and the clean-cut
boys of the drill team that didn’t use their bayo¬
nets. [laughter]

They were beautifully controlled. You saw
them: they were marching up and down the field.
And here were these hippie types, filthy things,
crowding in on them, and they got almost within
a foot of these kids. It’s a wonder something didn’t
happen. Then the command was given to turn,
and they did their marching in a smaller square
than apparently had been designated. Of the
people in the stands that had come to see
Governor’s Day, I heard one woman say, “Just
keep on marching.” They had fixed bayonets, and
I think they had tremendous control. I was proud
of them; all the more credit to them.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various factions here to the conflict that
developed: the ROTC, the demonstrators, the
university administration? What should have
been their reaction?

Well, I definitely think the radicals were out
of line. I don’t know what their reaction should
be. Of course, it’s difficult to say. There are pros
and cons to the administration. I would have not
been as cool as the administration was, certainly.
I would have gathered them all up and railroaded
them out of town or something, [laughter] But,
of course, you can’t do that. You have to go
through due processes as my husband tells me. I
said, “I just hope they put me on the jury.”

He said, “Never in a million years they’d put
you on the jury, [laughter] You’ve already formed
your opinion about what to do with them.”

I’m inclined to agree with the president of
Notre Dame. Apparently he hands out this list of
rules to everyone every year: “You shall be ex¬
pelled, get a failing grade in this term, no money
refunded, if this kind of thing happens on cam¬
pus, and you’re found guilty.” This is what he’s
done, and there hasn’t been too much trouble at
Notre Dame since then. I think this is the way
we’ve got to go.

If they’re not here to go to school, I think
they should be expelled. They remind me of a
bunch of four-year-olds just screaming to get their
own way, and I think they need a turning over
and given a dam good hiding and sent home. I
don’t think the university should have to baby¬
sit these kids; I think it’s their parents. They’re
the ones that are sending them to school. I know
if my child did this. I’d want to know what the
heck he was doing, and he’d either shape up or
ship out in my house! I think people are far too
easy, and a lot of parents just don’t care: as long
as they’re out of their hair, keep them away at
school. I think this is wrong.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor ’s Day—the firing of Hartman
Hall and the Hobbit Hole?

I think it’s absolutely stupid. But I think
they’re sick people that do this kind of thing. But
you get your radicals whipping people up until
these kids are so emotional. It’s a very emotional
thing—you could feel it as you sat there. There
were a heck of a lot more of them than us. They
came up in the stands either side of us and at the
back of us and started to stamp their feet and the
whole place, you know, shook. You get a bunch
of kids in a situation like this that are immature,
and they’re liable to do anything when they’re
whipped up. I don’t think they think—if it was
students. (I’m not saying that it was students.)
It’s either that, or a sick mind.

What category of participant in the various dem¬
onstrations and so forth — students, faculty, or
outsiders—do you feel was most effective in start¬
ing the violence?

Oh, the faculty! I definitely think it was the
faculty. There were two or three of the faculty
professors who got up there, and the kids would
quiet down when President Miller asked them to
give courtesy to the governor. A couple of fac¬
ulty members whom I’ll never forget got down
in front and started to wave their arms and whip

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

up the crowd. This happened at least twice or three
times, and every time the kids started to quiet
down and get interested, then these two would
get back down there and start yelling and doing
this again, you know, and waving their arms
around and getting these kids whipped up. Other
faculty members couldn’t stop them; they were
talking to them. Some of the faculty members that
had participated in the march for peace were try¬
ing to stop them, the couple that I’m thinking of.
I'm sure you know who I'm thinking of. [laugh¬
ter]

Do you think outsiders were important?

Yes, I do. This one boy from Berkeley at the
meetings we went to on Tuesday evenings was
quite instrumental. I was watching him. Of course,
I didn’t participate as much as my husband. Well,
my husband did, you know. He was on the kind
of board that they have there, but I was asked to
participate a little, but then the rest of the time I
could circulate. I was watching this boy. Well, he
was older; he was most probably between twenty-
five and thirty; he was an older kid. He was go¬
ing from one group to the other and just inter¬
rupting and kind of stilling the pot and then go¬
ing to the other [group]. It was very definitely a
pattern when I watched this. And he. I'm sure, is
a professional agitator, and he said he was from
Berkeley.

What actions do you think were most effective in
preventing more violence ?

I don’t know. Certainly, Frankie Sue Del
Papa’s statement and President Miller’s statement
helped quiet things down. I think some of the kids
realized that the legislators were threatening to
cut off money and carrying on like this (I think
this helped). I'm sure this had a slightly sobering
effect on these kids. The townspeople threaten¬
ing to come out and clean them out, I think maybe
made them stop to think a little bit. But I cer¬
tainly don’t think it’ll stop it. I think we’ve got to
have firmer measures than this. I think that we’ve

got to show that we’re going to do what we say
as far as if they’re found guilty. Just expel them,
terminate contracts, or whatever we have to do,
but clean them out somehow. I think when they
know that we won’t stand it, then let them go
some place else and rabble-rouse if they can get
away with it.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image with outsiders?

Well, we’ve had a pretty rough time the last
three weeks. We’ve been going to various func¬
tions outside the university, and at every single
one of the functions, have been jumped upon by
townspeople demanding that we just throw them
off campus, which is easily said, but you can’t do
this without due process. Sometimes the process
is slow, but I don’t think the townspeople are
going to stand that. If the university and the Board
of Regents don’t put their foot down and do some¬
thing right now, we’re going to be in a mess, be¬
cause I think Nevada’s a very conservative state
to begin with. And my husband was talking to a
senator from Vegas the other day, and he was talk¬
ing about cutting off monies to faculty members.
Immediately the senate down in Carson City is
taking the guidance of the university away when
they step out of line. So, I think something has to
be done.

Well, what can the university do to focus public
opinion ?

I think some very firm statements have to
come out of the administration office: “I’ll give
them a fair trial, but by golly, then we act.” I think
this is the only way we’re going to restore the
confidence of the townspeople and the univer¬
sity.

Do you feel that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participation in demonstrations?

No. I think it’s academic license. I think
they’re using this for a vehicle, and any excuse is

ELIZABETH ANDERSON

better than none. It’s like hiding behind the Fifth
Amendment. Any responsible professor, sure, has
the academic freedom, but this is going too far.
This is just plain license, as far as I'm concerned.
They’re just hiding behind this freedom.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally? Or do you think they should try to influ¬
ence government decisions?

I don’t think they should influence govern¬
ment decisions as representatives of the Univer¬
sity of Nevada. I think the only thing they can do
is register and vote and go through normal chan¬
nels like any other citizen of the state. But I don’t
think they should try and influence the legisla¬
tors politically. I don’t think it’s their business.
This is the university. I don’t think you can mix
the university and politics, but I do think as indi¬
viduals they should go to the polls.

Where do you think the peace movement is headed
here now?

For more violence, unless we do something.
I really do. And I don’t think it’s a peace move¬
ment. I mean, that’s a misnomer, as far as I’m
concerned. It’s an excuse. I think if the Vietnam
War were over tomorrow, they’d start on either
the Negroes or something else to rabble-rouse,
because I think it’s the students that aren’t mak¬
ing it to the university that are doing this. They’re
the only ones that have time for it.

What other comments do you want to make now
about the whole situation?

Well, it’s certainly not as bad here as it is in
many, many other places throughout the states. I
think we’re wrong in, for instance, the Kent State
thing. It was a dreadful thing, but the radicals (or
the peace movement or whatever you want to call
it) are screaming that the guards should not have
had bullets. Now, this is crazy. These kids are the
same age—nineteen and twenty—as the ones that
are rabble-rousing, and what are they supposed

to do? Stand there and let these other kids throw
rocks at them and stones at them? No. I don’t
agree with that. But I do feel that if the radicals
don’t want to be injured, then they just got to
quit. That’s all. I mean, they’re breaking the laws
of the land, and the only way that they can influ¬
ence anyone or should be able to influence any¬
one is to go to the polls.

I was very upset when they marched on the
census bureau. 1 They won. They won because
they had that poor man fired, even though he was
not found guilty of racial discrimination. Yet they
still won. This is wrong. I don’t agree with this at
all. I think they should be punished. I think if they
don’t like the country, then they just might as well
pack up and get out. I happen to like this country,
and I happen to like it the way it is. And the ma¬
jority of people feel the way I do.

It was the same with the Negroes. They tried
to pull the flag down at Governor’s Day. I went
up to them afterwards, [laughter] I was the only
incident: I batted one with my umbrella, [laugh¬
ter] I was so mad! I told him, I said, “Don’t you
dare pull the United States flag down in front of
me.”

So he says, “Listen to the white lady calling
the nigger, telling the nigger boy to go home.”

I said, “I’m not telling you to go home. I’m
just telling you to respect our country’s flag.”

He said, “Well, lady, you brought us over
here.”

I said, “Don’t pull that kind of stuff around
me.” I said, “This was 200 years ago,” and I said,
“You should thank your lucky stars that your par¬
ents were slaves, your grandparents were slaves.
After all, if you were still back in Africa, where
would you be? You’d be in the jungle with bones
through your noses.” And this is the truth. They
forget this. This is another vehicle for them to
rabble-rouse—slaves. I think it’s a guilt-complex
that the American people have in this instance.
And, well, it is in all instances. They’re guilty
about the war, and this is why they’re letting the
radicals get away with it. They’re guilty about
bringing slaves over, so therefore, the Negroes
get away with it. And I don’t think this is right.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

And as far as I'm concerned, I don’t feel guilt
about anything. My husband works hard. There
are other people at the university that work hard.

We were sitting there on the Tuesday night,
and this one boy said, “Well, ma’am,” he says,
“you don’t know where it’s at.” He says, “All
you do in engineering is you have a narrow, little
field. You don’t know anything about life.” This
is a nineteen, twenty-year-old telling me I don’t
know anything about life, or the university pro¬
fessors don’t know anything about life?

There were eight of them around the table. I
said, “Oh, now, come on, now! Stop to think!” I
said, “How many of you kids didn’t have a pair
of shoes to call your own until you were twelve?”
Well, they looked at me as if I was crazy, you
know. I said, “Well, there’s a professor over in
engineering with a Ph.D. that never saw a new
pair of shoes until he was twelve years of age,
and then he’d worked for them himself.”

“Oh, ma’am, we didn’t know.”

I said, “There’s a heck of a lot of things you
kids don’t know.”

Immediately, one of them said, “Well,
ma’am,” he says, “you don’t know where it’s at.”
He said, “You wait till you’ve been bombed. I
just come back from Vietnam,” and he was do¬
ing this kind of bit, you know.

I said, “What do you mean?”

“Well,” he said, “I spent a whole year in Viet¬
nam, and I was bombed and shot at, and you don’t
know where it’s at.”

I said, “Listen. You wait till you’ve done that
for six years like I did, and then you’ll know
where it’s at.”

“Oh, lady, I didn’t know.”

I said, “There’s a heck of a lot . . . .” You see?
They don’t know. They don’t know. They just
have everything handed on a silver platter.
They’re just plain stupid. They don’t think,
they’re immature.

One of them said, “Well,” he says, “we’ve
got all the answers. We’ve got the world by the
tail.”

I said, “Yes, I thought so at nineteen years of
age,” I said, “and the older you get, the more you
realize how immature you are and how little you

know in this life.” I said, “That’s a sure sign of
immaturity.” They are immature. It’s just the way
I feel about them: kids that can’t make it in col¬
lege and immature ones, and quite a lot of them
are supported by their families. As long as they’re
out of the family hair, that’s why they’re here,
and it’s sad. But I don’t think a few people should
wreck a university, and I think some of the other
hard-working kids have to get into this and let
them know that they’re not going to stand for it. I
think the faculty have to get into it to let the fac¬
ulty rabble-rousers know that they’re not going
to stand for it. I think it’s got to come right up the
line, and then maybe we’ll get somewhere. But,
of course, I don’t have answers, too. [laughter]

Note

1. A demonstration at the US Census Bureau in Reno
on April 3, 1970, escalated to violence after 60 indi¬
viduals protested the absence of black census takers
for the 1970 census.

Glen Atkinson

June 4, 1970

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

I was going to ask you. [laughter] I really
don’t know.

Tell me what your reaction was to President
Nixon’s decision to go into Cambodia.

It was so depressing I didn’t even listen to
the TV speech. I was not in town. I was in Colo¬
rado Springs at the time at the social science con¬
vention, and I knew what he was going to say. I
just really couldn’t bring myself to listen or even
read anything about it for several days.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

I think there was a direct relationship. I don’t
think that you can document that. I think there
was a direct relationship not only here but around
the United States. As I say, I was in Colorado at
the time at a meeting with social science people

from around the Rocky Mountain region. So, it
was very obvious something was going to hap¬
pen—very obvious.

What was your reaction to events in the rest of
the country related to the Cambodia decision ?

I don’t understand. What do you mean? You
mean, was there a direct relationship?

No, what was your reaction to Kent State and the
other demonstrations related to the Cambodia
decision away from here?

Oh, my reaction to, say, specifically Kent
State, was that I couldn’t believe that they sent
them in there to control the crowd with, [laugh¬
ter] you know, rifles. That just doesn’t seem sane
to me. I don’t know what happened at Kent State.
I suppose that the crowd was unruly and that sort
of thing, and that there would have been crowd¬
controlling devices and rifles.

It seems interesting to me that the conserva¬
tive campuses—Nevada, Kent State, South Caro¬
lina—are the ones that felt the brunt of this. I
think that the Cambodia move really did polarize
people. I think that the evidence I would cite there

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

would be the type of campuses that felt the reac¬
tion. I have some friends in Texas, and they felt
things there that they hadn’t felt before. Again,
specifically with Kent State, I don’t know exactly
what took place there. I don’t know who was pro¬
voked by, you know, what forces and so forth.
But I think that’s evidence that it was really a
very serious polarization brought on by Cambo¬
dia, I would say.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day here on this
campus: what did you think of the arrangements
made for the observance of Governor’s Day?

Well, to tell you, I was so sure something was
going to happen that I didn’t go, either as a pro¬
testor or observer or anything else. I knew that
the mood of the campus was such that they should
have postponed that. I stayed away. I feel now I
should have gone more as a stand-between, you
know, as some of the faculty here did. I didn’t
know what was happening, or I would have. But
I think that was a very poorly thought-out pro¬
gram. I think they should have postponed it, ob¬
viously.

What was your reaction to the demonstrations —
the Governor’s Day demonstrations?

As I say, I wasn’t there. I don’t really know
what happened yet at Governor’s Day, although
I’ve talked to some people. I talked with Adamian
and Maher, and I talked to people on both sides
who were there. And I really don’t know what
happened, [laughter] So, my reaction is still that
I can’t find out anything. I really can’t find out
why everybody’s so upset about what supposedly
happened. But it doesn’t seem that, really, very
much happened as what should have been ex¬
pected to happen. I think they should feel very
lucky it was that mild. As I say, I stayed away,
[laughter]

Well, from what you’ve heard, what do you think
should have been the reaction of the ROTC and
the administration and even the demonstrators

to the conflict that developed over Governor’s
Day?

Well, first, they should have postponed it.
Now, since they didn’t postpone it, to some ex¬
tent it’s out of the hands of the ROTC on cam¬
pus. It’s out of the hands of the administration on
campus. I don’t think there’s much the president
could do other than say, “We’re trying to do some¬
thing.” I think, though, from some comments that
he was pleased with the reaction of most of the
students. As I understand, Governor Laxalt said
he was pleased. I think a statement like that would
have helped. I think, also, that some positive state¬
ment would have helped: that we’re going to do
something about ROTC on campus and make it
completely voluntary, that we’re going to really
review this. But even that is out of the hands of
the president and the hands of the regents. I’m
mostly disappointed with the chancellor, that he’s
done nothing to help the situation on either side,
as far as I can see. President Miller, I think, has
done what he can do, as well.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the fire bombing?

Well, both the ROTC building and Hobbit
Hole: it’s disappointing to see that. I think that it
shouldn’t have been unexpected. Again, my re¬
action is just one of disappointment, but I think
it’s just a matter of frustration, knowing that the
president can’t do anything, that the chancellor
hasn’t done anything, and the regents haven’t
done anything to improve the situation. It’s just a
sheer guess, but I think that one or both of those
bombings were carried out by people off cam¬
pus, because we know they were here. I’ve seen
and talked to the people who are off campus here
who were more radical than the students. One
thing I think ought to be noted is that most of the
students did not want the off-campus people here
and peacefully asked those people to leave. They
were apparently invited by somebody on cam¬
pus, but they were not welcome by most students.
So, I think my reaction is just a matter of frustra-

GLEN ATKINSON

tion, and I think it’s poor judgment on the part of
the regents and the chancellor, primarily.

What category of participant (this kind of leads
into what you were saying before )— the students,
the faculty, or ou tsiders—do you think was most
important in stirring up the violence?

I think the faculty played a tremendous role
in quieting it down. I'm talking now about people
like Jim Hulse from history, George Herman from
English, and Bob Harvey from English. These
are liberal professors on campus, and I think these
kind of people played a vital role in keeping it as
quiet as it was. As I say. I’m disappointed now
that I didn’t go up there to assist in this. I think,
by and large, the faculty played a quieting role. I
think, by and large, that most students were quiet,
unbelievably quiet, you know, given everything
that happened. And they began to talk to each

other. I think that there was a small minority of
students and almost infinitesimally small, you
know, faculty, if any, that led to the violence. I
still suspect some outside influence here. I’m not
talking about conspiracy or anything like that, but
I know of, say, about eight people who were on
campus obviously to incite the situation.

Do you think that the outsiders were important
then ?

Important, yes.

You have mentioned some people that tried to
keep things quiet. What actions do you feel were
most effective in preventing more violence ?

Well, the appearance of some of these people
I mentioned at the Governor’s Day ceremonies
for getting between some people (who wanted to

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

go further) and the ROTC people, I understand.
But probably as important, if not more impor¬
tant, was following that, there would be three
meetings going on everywhere on this campus at
one time. At almost every one of these meetings,
somebody was asking for something to be done,
and they always had some kind of plan that they
wanted, you know, to carry forward. Invariably,
the same people—the people who kind of molli¬
fied the situation—would show up to quiet them
down and say, “Well, what would be the effect of
your action?” and this sort of thing. So, a number
of things that were planned were, in effect, killed
by these people and the faculty here.

I might add that I think probably one of the
contributors to the tense situation was such edi¬
torials as on KOLO radio. I think that they con¬
tributed probably more to the situation than
people on campus by kind of inciting the com¬
munity to bring about some aggressive action, that
sort of thing, and then people here heard this and
became very angry.

I went to a meeting where one man wanted
to have some radio time to answer their editorial,
and he was talked out of it because of this seg¬
ment that I’ve been talking about. They said, “No,
all you would do is incite the thing worse.” And
I think the faculty did a tremendous part in really
just biting their tongue. It was very difficult for
them to do because of these sorts of editorials. I
know KOLO television had a very good edito¬
rial, but I understand that a few of the stations
downtown, especially KOLO radio, contributed
to inciting the situation, inflaming the situation
further.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image or reputation with outsiders?

Oh, it immediately hurt the image of the uni¬
versity with the people off campus, obviously, in
the short run. I am not too sure about the long
run. I think, for the first time, that some people
downtown are beginning to say, “There is a prob¬
lem.” They’re beginning to say that these students
are serious about needing change. So, in the long
run, I don’t really know. I think this is the reason

a lot of people bit their tongue, hoping that when
it’s all over, the university will be better off, or at
least not hurt in the situation.

An editorial in the paper yesterday—in the
Nevada State Journal — really bothered me. It
was about Stanford university frying to get alumni
funds, saying they hoped that Stanford will have
a good football game next year to offset this. Well,
I think now that people are beginning to realize
that the football teams are maybe nice, but not
what people are really looking for. It’s not what
they’re looking for on campus any longer.

In terms of background, I think that the com¬
munity is trying to understand that. I believe that
World War II and the G.I. Bill of Rights really
transformed the university from one of sixteen-,
seventeen-, eighteen-year-old people coming to
campus living in their father’s fraternity house
and going to school, to one where adults come to
school. And although fraternities and football are
still a part of the university, they are not as im¬
portant as they were twenty years ago. People
downtown have a 1930s image of the university,
and I think they’re beginning to understand that
this university has changed since they were here,
and is changing now, which I think may be a ben¬
eficial effect.

What can the university do to focus public opin¬
ion ?

I’ve given a lot of thought to this, [laughter]
Somehow, we have to get out off campus, but
also, somehow, get people on campus. I think
getting on campus may be more important than
us going off campus. I suppose cultural events,
which have been going on for a long time—lec¬
ture, tours, this sort of thing—are getting people
in here to see what other people are saying around
the United States. Probably even some seminar-
type things for business leaders and community
leaders where you get the faculty who are not
afraid to speak out, talking with community lead¬
ers. Get them on campus.

Also, get faculty off campus. I was really dis¬
appointed when I came to University of Nevada.
I was at University of Oklahoma, which is some-

GLEN ATKINSON

thing of a backward state, normally. The univer¬
sity didn’t work with the state there, and the Uni¬
versity of Nevada doesn’t with the state here. I
think in some sense, the state is getting cheated,
[laughter]

We have a bureau of business and economic
research in our College of Business, which has
done almost nothing to justify itself in terms of
serving the legislature, serving the department of
highways, this sort of thing. I don’t know whose
fault that is, whether it’s the university or the state
or what. I really don’t know. But use the facili¬
ties we have here now to promote unity, growth.
I mean, when I talk about growth. I’m not talking
economical growth; I’m talking about the new
ideas, going into social programs, and that sort
of thing. Beyond that, I don’t really know what
can be done. I really don’t.

That's good. Do you think that issues of academic
freedom were involved in participating in a dem¬
onstration ?

Oh, issues like academic freedom, I guess,
are almost always involved [laughter] when you
try to limit anybody’s activity. Obviously, there
is some professional conduct that has to be rec¬
ognized by the faculty. But obviously, if you’re
going to investigate one or two or three people,
or if you’re going to say that as a class we can’t
do certain things, as a group we can’t do certain
things, you’re going to run up the academic free¬
dom issue.

Out of all of this, I really don’t know how
serious all this is yet. I think the most serious
thing that happened here specifically with this
case is that the Board of Regents acted very hast¬
ily. They obviously didn’t perform their function
of standing between the community and the aca¬
demic community. They discussed the case in
public, which I think is illegal. They’ve acted
awfully hasty in their proposed code reforms.
That is, I think the American tradition they use,
which I think is important, is to bring people into
the decision-making process.

Now, if they want to affect faculty behav¬
ior, they’ll be a lot smarter by consulting us. They

may do what they please, I suppose, after that.
But if you take those kind of rash actions in a
public meeting (saying that we’re going to inves¬
tigate these two people, and if they can’t prove
themselves innocent we’re going to fire them), I
think that’s un-American. I really do. I think that
that’s very repressive, and I think that the regents
ought to be aware of that.

I think the faculty’s been hesitant to really
say something strong to the regents in order to
protect the two people involved. At least one of
the two people involved says, “Go ahead and
make the change. Don’t protect me.’’ But I think
that their statement that they have to prove them¬
selves innocent is really about academic freedom.
I think so, yes.

How do you think that students and faculty can
be effective politically, or should they try to in¬
fluence governmental policy?

Yes, I am an eternal optimist. I don’t look
back to some classical age of democracy where
this is a period we’ve torn up, and we’re going
downhill. I think we’re going uphill. What’s re¬
ally happened here, I think, is that the academic
community is becoming involved with politics,
and this is an extension of democracy, especially
for the students: they are becoming really in¬
volved in politics. The people who are now in
power don’t know how to handle it. They don’t
know how to let these people into the political
process, and they’re very worried. And it’s hap¬
pening.

I went to the Democratic county convention
and the state convention, and students and fac¬
ulty both showed up there. They wrote a plat¬
form, which the Democratic leaders, in particu¬
lar, condemned. So you ask the people to become
involved in politics and the normal processes, and
then they become involved, and then you say,
“Well, you know, what they did was somehow
not what they ought to have done.” I think that’s
awfully depressing for the people who did get
involved.

I suspect that the students particularly will
be involved now. I know as a student or teacher,

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

I've been in a college community for quite a
while, and it’s quite a difference. Professors are
speaking out now about issues around their com¬
munity. They used to talk about hunger in India
or discrimination in Alabama. Now, they’re talk¬
ing about hunger in Berkeley or Reno and dis¬
crimination in those same places. And that’s dis¬
turbing to the people. I don’t think that we can,
as faculty and students and so forth, expect any¬
body to love us for coming in. [laughter] I think
we can expect disruption for a while until we
somehow win our position. I think violence is to
be expected.

This group of students now are really funda¬
mentally different than they were ten years ago. I
find my students don’t care for home ownership.
Now, you tell their parents that home ownership’s
not worth while, and that’s a challenge to their
values. Their parents tell them what they need is
a good depression to straighten them out. What
they’re really saying is that, “If you were hungry
enough, you’d straighten up and accept my value
system.” [laughter] And that doesn’t seem to be
very important, so there’s really a revolution go¬
ing on, and by revolution, I mean just there’s a
shift of power. I don’t mean it has to be armed. I
think the political leaders can be widened to pre¬
vent it, but I don’t think they are. So it just doesn’t
happen.

Where do you think the peace movement is headed
now in this area?

Considerably more reasonable, I think. They
are saying we’re going to cut our hair, shave our
beards; and we’re going to quit using dirty lan¬
guage. I think they were awfully disgusted—and
they ought to have been—when they got rid of
Johnson and got either Nixon or Humphrey.
That’s awfully discouraging, but they rebounded.
I mean, that’s where some of the real pessimism
came from. So, they’re understanding that the lo¬
cal process is considerably more complex than
they had imagined. And I think they’re ready for
it now. I think they’re ready to work for some
people in Congress and some people in the Sen¬
ate and in the state houses and this sort of thing.

I suspect there will be students running for
boards of regents around the country, for senate
around the country, this sort of thing. They’re
going to try some economic boycotts, which I
don’t know how effective they are. I notice now
that they are using their economic power by not
buying from certain kinds of companies, but I’m
kind of skeptical of that except in a few cases. So
I do see it more reasonable now. I see that they
understand that by using certain tactics they have
alienated many people that they could have had
on their side. So, I see it in terms of one more tty
at a political move. After that, I don’t know. It
depends on how the politics come out.

Carl Backman

June 16, 1970

All right, just for the record, can you mention your
name, what you consider to be your hometown,
and your position on the faculty?

Well, I'm Carl Backman, professor of soci¬
ology. And my hometown is Reno, of course.

And why do you think you were chosen to be in-
terviewed?

Well, I guess because I was there at the
Governor’s Day ceremony. And I played a
role in trying to keep things quiet, calmed
down.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to move troops into Cambodia ?

Oh, I was opposed.

You were opposed to that?

Yes.

And in what way do you think that this decision
was related to what happened next on the Uni¬
versity of Nevada, Reno, campus?

Well, certain students were upset over it, and
so they planned a protest. Well, I think it was the
Cambodian thing, the Kent State thing, too.

Yes, well, I was going to ask you about that. What
was your reaction to other related things like Kent
State?

Well, quite shocked. I was in shock.

Regarding the Governor’s Day activities on this
campus, what did you think of the arrangements
made for the observances, for the ceremony it¬
self?

Oh, I hadn’t paid much attention to it, at all.
I didn’t think particularly one way or another,
except that the day before, I realized that there
might be some problems emerging in connection
with the simultaneous peace protest and
Governor’s Day observances. I recall we got this
fake flyer canceling the Governor’s Day. I thought
this was a wise move.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Yes. You thought it was wise to have canceled it.
And then you discovered that it was a fake?

Yes. Well. I didn’t discover it until the next
day, Wednesday. I should have, because one of
the things I noticed was that it was almost word-
for-word Stanford President [Kenneth] Pitzer’s
declaration calling for a day of consideration. It
must have just popped into the state.

Oh, I see. Yes. What was your reaction to the dem¬
onstration—the peace demonstration during the
ceremonies for Governor’s Day. ?

Oh, well, my main concern all through the
whole business was to prevent any kind of vio¬
lence as far as the peace demonstrators and the
ROTC getting mixed up.

Did you feel that it was necessary to participate
in any way in the demonstration or the activi¬
ties?

Well, I anticipated that there might be some
problems, particularly when I heard that they were
going to the stadium. So I not only planned to go
with them myself and see what I could do to keep
things quiet, but I invited some other members of
the department to come along. We had a staff
meeting that morning and a number of times we
were going to go back, but things were tense
enough so that we thought we’d better stay and
see what we could do, if any trouble broke out.

What do you think was the most effective part of
either the demonstration or the observances —
with respect to your own emotional response to
it, perhaps?

Well, as I say, I wasn’t really involved. Feel¬
ing the way I did about the war, I was pleased the
students were concerned, and quite a number of
students did turn out. Probably more students
turned out for the peace demonstration than for
Governor’s Day. But I was so much involved in
frying to keep the peace that I didn’t pay much
attention to what was going on except from mo¬

ment to moment in terms of attempting to keep
the peace kids from getting in the ROTC rank
and things like that. We thought that as long as
we could minimize any kind of physical contact
between the two groups, things would stay on a
verbal level rather than kind of a hostility that
could have left somebody hurt.

Well, there was fear, then, that they might actu¬
ally come in physical contact with each other?

Yes, yes. This was the problem when the stu¬
dents started moving out on the field.

Do you have any feeling about what the reaction
should have been—either from the point of view
of the ROTC or the administration or the demon¬
strators—to the conflict that developed?

Well, it’s one of those things: we wouldn’t
have had anything happen at all if they had been
able to keep the two ceremonies or groupings
separate physically. This didn’t occur, so there
was a verbal confrontation, so to speak. And I
think it’s a matter of from whose standpoint. The
students who were involved felt that they were
making their point in such a demonstration. As it
turned out, it probably got a rather severe com¬
munity backlash as a result. So, whether it was
any progress in terms of the goals that they had is
difficult to say.

Well, what was your reaction, then, to the vio¬
lence that erupted after the Governor’s Day? Say,
the bombing first of the ROTC building and then
the bombing of the Hobbit Hole?

Well, I was concerned about both. I certainly
hate to see that kind of thing happen. I think that
a good part of the community reaction against
the students and against the university could be
attributed to those two events, although the events
at the Governor’s Day ceremony itself played a
role, too.

What category of participant — student, faculty or
outsider—do you feel had the most to do with

CARL BAC KM AN

fomenting the violence that did erupt on this cam¬
pus?

Well, there were relatively few faculty in¬
volved, at all. And most of the faculty that were
there stepped in to keep the peace, so to speak.
And it was primarily a student demonstration, as
I see it, and primarily our own students.

The whole reason I asked that is that some people
had mentioned outsiders are important, you know.

Yes. But as I say, I talked with the leaders in
frying to keep them calm. As far as I could see,
they were our own students, [laughter]

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence or cooling off the other
people?

Well, I think that the activities of all the fac¬
ulty members that showed up were crucial, be¬
cause the students did not organize their group
very well. They didn’t have recognized monitors,
which you have in non-violent kinds of demon¬
strations. Our students are not terribly experi¬
enced in this area, so they just didn’t realize that
they needed these kinds of people.

Things could have gotten out of hand if the
faculty members, in a sense, hadn’t taken over
and assumed that role of keeping them from any
physical contact between the students and ROTC
and also keeping them from actual physical dis¬
ruption of the ceremony. It was the verbal kind
of disruption, which was impossible to control,
but I think we were able to control the actual
physical interference with the activities of the
students.

I see. How do you think events on campus affect
the university’s image with outsiders? You spoke
to that somewhat. Do you want to expand?

Well, I think that it certainly created a con¬
siderable community reaction, and I think that
this was partly due to the role of the mass media.

This was news. They hadn’t had any of this kind
of news as they’ve had in many other communi¬
ties, and they made the most of it. I'm afraid.

Yes, it was exaggerated?

I think it was exaggerated; I think so.

What function should the university have in fo¬
cusing public opinion?

Well, particularly because of the students I’m
inclined to feel that the university, more and more,
is assuming a kind of moral position as the church
did at one time.

And this is a welcome sign?

Well, I don’t know if it’s a welcome sign or
not. It makes the university lack a lot more struc¬
ture and things of that sort. It’d be nice to stay in
the ivory tower and go about your business, but I
don’t think the students are going to allow us to
do that.

Do you feel that the issues of academic freedom
are involved in participating in a demonstration ?

Oh, they certainly are.

Want to expand on that in any way?

Well, I’m not sure that I can defend the idea
that students and faculty should have more rights
than anyone else, but certainly they should have
as many rights as the citizens in participating in
peaceful demonstrations.

How can students or faculty—whichever you want
to speak to—be effective politically? Should they
attempt to influence political or governmental
policies?

Well, I don’t know. I think if you change it to
“Should any citizen feel obligated?” certainly,
there’s obligation in democracy for any student.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, not only should they, but in which way can
they be most effective?

Well, they have a positive obligation. How
can they be effective? Well, I’m inclined to feel
that the most effective way is through the ballot
box, but it involves more than just voting. Politi¬
cal participation involves working within the
party to select a candidate. Our students now arc
at the point where they are going to work for
votes. I don’t think they have moved to the point
where they want to enter through a selection of
candidates.

Where is the peace movement in this area headed?
Can you see ?

I don’t know. I hadn’t detected a real strong re¬
surgence of the peace movement, organization-
wise. It sort of died like most of the chapters of
the peace organizations. After the Cambodian
invasion, I think there was some attempt to re¬
vive it, but I don’t know. I’m not that much in¬
volved.

Edmund Barmettler

May 29, 1970

Now, just for the record if you’ll say your name
and your residence and your position.

My name is Edmund Robert Barmettler. I’m
a professor of agricultural economics. I live in
Reno, Nevada.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed for this project?

Oh, I suppose because I’ve been more or less
involved in some of these activities and have been
pronounced an innocent bystander.

What was your reaction to the president’s deci¬
sion to go into Cambodia ?

I abhor war, despite the fact that I was in the
military for twenty-seven years, first as an active
soldier and then later on for about twenty-two or
twenty-three years as a reservist. I know the mili¬
tary mind in some degree; I understand, also, the
problems that the military faces. But I have, for a
number of years, perhaps changed in my attitude,
and in recent years, perhaps I’ve developed into

a more pacifist type of individual. And since I
don’t believe that wars have ever really solved
human problems, I think from this basic issue, it
is wrong. Secondly, I think since also I have taken
on over the last few years a different attitude in
terms of my relationship with God and with the
environment in which I live, I think it’s just mor¬
ally wrong, scripturally wrong. And it’s literally
an effort on our paid to save something that re¬
ally is questionable, whether we are able to ac¬
complish what we’d set out to do as a society.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

On the Reno campus, I don’t think the Cam¬
bodia thing really had very much of an effect. I
think the situation was quite ripe for our students
to experiment in a larger expression. I’m not re¬
ally persuaded that, except for a very small ma¬
jority, this issue really played an important part.
I think a much more significant part is played in
the general question: what can students do in or¬
der to be able to be heard in a lot of issues? I
think as far as Nevada students are concerned,
by far the more important question has to do with

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Edmund Barmettler, 1970s.

ecology and questions of the quality of life than
it has to do with the war. I think there is a small
segment of students in here that did become quite
stirred up. and they use this as a vehicle for other
expression. This is my personal viewpoint.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country that were apparen tly related to the
Cambodia incident?

Well, of course, it’s distressing to hear of the
destruction of property and of the abrogation of
values that we’ve held rather dear for so many,
many years—and particularly as one that’s prob¬
ably of an age that’s suffered through a depres¬
sion. And you perhaps have at least an ambiva¬
lent feeling about these things. On the one hand,
you say to yourself, “Well, perhaps these students
or young people, or even maybe some of the older
ones, and maybe even faculty members, really

haven’t suffered enough to really know when
they’re well-off.” On the other hand, there’s no
question about the fact that young people are
asked to offer their lives in Cambodia and other
places as sacrificial goats in this thing called na¬
tional pride, and they ought to be able, and cer¬
tainly ought to find means for expressing this feel¬
ing—or this disagreement—with the national
leadership to go to war. (I’m not sure whether I
answered that question very well.)

I thought you answered it very well. Speaking now
of the Governor’s Day activities: what did you
think of the arrangements made for the
Governor’s Day observances?

Well, frankly, the Governor’s Day arrange¬
ment has been a traditional activity on the cam¬
pus. I know before I went out to Hawaii it was a
common occurrence, and it was a common activ¬
ity when I returned. These things are developed
well in advance, and there should have been no
problem, except that a couple of circumstances
may have produced a kind of a collision effect:
that is, Earth Day, the moratoriums, and of course,
the entry into Cambodia and so forth. All of them
seemed to converge at that time, and I think these,
perhaps non-purposefully, were designed that way
to collide on that day. On the other hand, I think
there was no reason, really, to say to cut out
Governor’s Day on that day simply because these
things occurred. From a purely administrative
view in terms of an invitation, I think the activi¬
ties could have continued independently.

What was your reaction to the demonstrations?

It depends upon which ones you’re talking
about: if you’re talking about the general overall
demonstration of the faculty and of the student
body throughout the campus, or if you’re talking
about the things that happened at the stadium.

Well, we’re talking about Governor’s Day gen¬
erally, so whatever you would like to say about
all of them.

EDMUND BARMETTLER

OK. Again, I would say that I personally hold
with the idea that nothing is solved by becoming
physical. I think nothing is solved by being ob¬
scene; nothing is solved by being vulgar. In fact,
it strikes me that people that view these sorts of
approaches lack, first of all, just plain, ordinary
humanity, or lack articulateness—a lack of vo¬
cabulary, actually.

Because there are many more words that are
incisive and precise than vulgarities. In fact, it
destroys almost all communication, if you’re try¬
ing to communicate with the sort of audience that
they were trying to communicate with. I don’t
think the governor understood these things, and
they no longer communicated to him, nor were
the people communicating that were there to lis¬
ten. And I think it’s unfortunate.

It’s particularly unfortunate that included in
this group were some people that have the ability
to express themselves well and have the ability
to speak to individuals such as the governor and

to make their desires known. Surely, one thing
that was accomplished was that there was a grow¬
ing resistance or polarization developed from the
demonstration that probably would not have de¬
veloped if simply petitions had been presented to
the governor objecting to this activity on the ba¬
sis of the situation and upon the circumstances
and upon the occasion of what occurred on those
several days. You know, it’s much like firing on
Fort Sumter, [laughter]

Did you feel it was necessary to participate in
any of the demonstrations or other activities?

No, because I personally find no difficulty in
expressing myself, either in private or in public,
because I do have a fairly good vocabulary, and I
don’t have to jump up and down on somebody’s
car hood in order to express myself, [laughter] In
fact, it strikes me as being a kind of a tantrum
sort of thing. It’s against rational debate and dis¬
cussion.

“I think nothing is solved by being obscene; nothing is solved by being vulgar. ” Antiwar graffiti on the campus
from around the time of the Governor’s Day event.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

What did you think was the most effective part of
the demonstrations or the Governor’s Day ob-
servance?

In terms of its creativity or destructiveness?
Either way.

[laughter] Well, I think the most destructive
part, of course, was the obstruction itself. I think
it was a real credit to the young men that were
exposed to the catcalls and to the general rude¬
ness of the hecklers or the protagonists in that
area to contain themselves. I was there just a short
time; I had other things to do. But I did see these
sorts of activities, and this made me see young
men and women take on this sort of a degrading
way of expressing themselves. I was for twelve
years a master sergeant in the army reserve, and I
know the vulgarities that men can exhibit. But it
hadn’t really struck me until then that young
women, perhaps coming from very fine Nevada
families or from Western families, could express
themselves in such vulgar terms. And it abhorred
me.

I don’t expect that of a young woman out of
a university. In fact, I don’t expect it out of a young
man. I might expect it some place in the army,
because maybe there is some justification for
these sorts of things. I doubt it, but maybe there
is. But I surely know that this isn’t true in Ne¬
vada. I’m sure that parents that raise their sons
and daughters to come to the University of Ne¬
vada don’t expect the university to condone this
sort of thing and to advance this sort of cultural
decay.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the ROTC, the demonstrators, and the univer¬
sity administration to what developed?

Well, as far as the ROTC is concerned, I have
nothing but commendation for them. I think they
contained themselves very well. You know, I may
have a different viewpoint of what ought to hap¬
pen relative of the ROTC-type program, and this

is another question. As far as the demonstrators
are concerned, I think peaceful demonstration
could have accomplished as much, and perhaps
much more. It certainly wouldn’t have brought
about the very difficult situation that we’re in now
in trying to make judgments along with the con¬
tinuing seismic effect that it had in the general
community.

As a member of the faculty senate, I know
that we’re going to be faced with this thing in its
repercussionary instances for some time. I don’t
think that the charges that have been made are
going to be easily settled, and likely, they
shouldn’t be. As far as the students are concerned,
I think the students lost ground. I think there’s
new resistance of the general community, espe¬
cially the community of Nevada in a sense that it
is a rural community. Despite the fact that we are
a kind of a developing cosmopolitan university,
we are still more rural and are basing values in
the state of Nevada. Although we get most of our
university population from the Reno area and
from Las Vegas, it’s still rural. The values there
are quite traditional, and this is one of the things
that I love about Nevada, because you can still
depend upon how Nevadans will react to some
things, which you can’t in many environments
today.

You can expect Nevadans to get mad when
they’re wronged, [laughter] And I think this is
rather charming about Nevada people. As a col¬
lege professor, a concern with the usual things
that we call academic freedom—the right to par¬
ticipate, in terms of making judgments upon my
own professional life—I think the reaction from
the community at large was to be expected then,
you see? I expect this, and I’m surprised that a
lot of other people didn’t expect this to happen,
that this sort of resistance would occur. And yet.
I’m frank to say that, really, not much occurred,
you see. Really not very much occurred. The in¬
cident that we’re talking about at the stadium and
so forth, in light of what has been happening all
across the country, is relatively insignificant.

It certainly was contrary to good taste, cer¬
tainly upon the part of the faculty members. I

EDMUND BARMETTLER

would certainly admonish them for this sort of
thing, you know, and say, “Well, you showed this
sort of rudeness that I don’t expect to have in a
faculty member,” and so on. “There were many
recourses open for expression, and you must ob¬
viously have recognized the risks that are involved
in this sort of thing.”

You see, I have another thought. I don’t sub¬
scribe very much to this modern philosophy or
the anti-guilt philosophy that so many hold. You
know, the modern psychiatrists are telling people,
“Well, you must get rid of your guilt feelings.” I
think you ought to feel guilty if you are guilty for
many things, I mean, obviously not for stupid,
foolish things, but if you are going to be disrup¬
tive, and you’re going to destroy and assail the
values that people hold. For people who hold the
traditional mores or standards of conduct within
a society, you ought not to get off, you know,
without accepting the idea that if you do things
that are contrary to this or under-perform or un-
der-conform, that you ought to expect punish¬
ment, and you ought to feel guilty as hell until
you are punished, [laughter] That’s kind of my
attitude, you see. And you take those sorts of risks
in a society such as this.

So, I would judge that students and faculty
members and administrators and community
members all have a role to play in terms of this
whole agglomeration that we call our society, and
their roles are kind of defined. They say if you’re
a student, you have a certain kind of a conduct
that beyond which it’s questionable whether it is,
first of all, appropriate to transgress, and perhaps
even a legal question whether you ought to be
beyond those areas. And this involves such things
as making judgments in areas that are really not
in your province or in your peer group area.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day then—the bombing?

The bombing? Oh, first of all, I think it’s stu¬
pid. I think generally that people that revert or
resort to taking the bludgeon into their own hands
and deciding, “Well, you know, we’re going to

go burn down a joint,” are the sort that I met in
the army, and they’re very low echelons. They’re
the ones that don’t have a vocabulary, that have
an obscenity for every other word. That falls into
this sort of category. Now, I think there are people
that are, I suppose, sufficiently non-worldly who
take this sort of expression that aren’t of the type
that I describe, but I think there are very few.

You see, the problem in my own case is I’m
not sure who would do this. I’m not sure that I
could point to students and say that students did
this, nor could I point to anything that this might
not be an import from somewhere as having ac¬
complished this. Or it might even be some indi¬
viduals or groups that might get some kind of an
enjoyment out of the militancy and out of the
excitement of seeing a social conflagration de¬
velop such as was expressed there—I mean, just
simply to keep things in foment or turmoil.

So, my general feeling about the violence? I
just simply think that it’s wrong, that it doesn’t
accomplish anything. It’s like, again, drawing
from the hip in a Western town, you know. It’s a
reaction type of response rather than rational,
thoughtful reaction to real problems. We are fac¬
ing real problems in our society, and it will not
solve them by getting a kind of a mini civil war
going in these various communities.

What category of participant — student, faculty,
or outsider—do you feel was most effective in
fomenting the violence that erupted?

I think, essentially, the local student faction,
probably the ones that are the minority faction
that has probably the most to gain by keeping
things stirred up. And I’m not talking about a
specific group as much as I’m talking about
people that are probably not very effectively
heard, whether this might be black or any other
segment within our student group—and perhaps
even faculty members—that are really not very
effective in being heard. Because this is a prob¬
lem in our society. Even in educated communi¬
ties, the question of being adequately represented
and having one’s views and one’s values advance
can be frustrating.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

From my own point of view. I’m quite sure
our own efforts to try to be everything to every¬
body in this university may be, in fact, a philoso¬
phy quite inadequate in the sense that we can
accomplish it. We can’t be everything to every¬
body. I think probably we ultimately are faced
with making some choices of what we can do
well, and do those things well, and stop trying to
be a miniature University of California by hav¬
ing, say, an ethnic study segment. In some minor
way, for instance, the University of Nevada may
be quite an appropriate place to have an ethnic
study dealing with Basques, [laughter] It might
be quite appropriate. On the other hand, I'm not
sure that we have to have an ethnic study in terms
of Oriental culture, in black culture. For that
matter, maybe we ought to include Swiss and
Portuguese and a few others. If we’re going to be
everything, we ought to have also a poor culture
as well as a rich culture, you know.

Maybe there’s a whole range of things that
ought to be done in order to hear everyone. But
then, perhaps, if we hold ourselves out and say,
“Look, we don’t specialize in black studies, we
don’t specialize in Basque culture,” people won’t
come here expecting it. Or if people come here
we say, “Well, you’re really only going to learn
something about math; you’re going to learn some
literature; you’re going to learn to properly com¬
municate; you’re going to learn something about
agriculture and about mining. These are the things
that we offer.”

We do some great things in mining. We may
do some wonderful things, say, in English litera¬
ture, but we’re lamentably short when it comes
to black studies. You have to go to the University
of California to have these things, because first
of all, the state of Nevada hasn’t really the re¬
sources to do all of these things and do them well.
To do some things well makes it possible for our
society, really, to benefit more.

It’s a little bit like in trade: the justification
for trade between nations is that in some places
people can do things better than others and do
them more cheaply, and therefore, the total soci¬
ety has made a gain, because everyone tends to
specialize in the thing that they do well or can

produce more or so on. I think it’s somewhat true
for an educational institution, because as surely
as we try to do everything, so surely will we also
deteriorate programs that are good now, unless,
of course, we all of a sudden fall heir to some
angel that’s willing to support this program, which
apparently the state legislature hasn’t been will¬
ing to do.

Do you think outsiders were important in caus¬
ing violence here?

Yes, but a kind of a different effect. If you
remember, the faculty was asked to stay with the
students to try to cool things the days after the
disturbance, and at several of the meetings that I
had an opportunity to attend, I noticed at a num¬
ber of these rap sessions, there were people there
that weren’t even students. They weren’t residents
of Nevada. This was on several occasions. And
the problem here was probably one more of pro¬
cedure than anything else, because it tended to
stimulate an irritation between the so-called hip¬
pie group and the cowboy group (you remember,
they were polarized in that fashion). Whereas,
before, the two groups were quite agreeable to
talking together and giving their vindictives to
each other in a more gentle fashion, it became
progressively more difficult to maintain an or¬
der, say, at the large conferences, simply because
there were antagonists there.

There were antagonists, perhaps, not in so
much as what they said, but in the way they pre¬
sented themselves. Remember, if you saw the
occasion, they were in the center of the group
sitting on top of the table behind the chairman of
the student senate. And this was a thorn of con¬
tention. I think, very effectively, it created, per¬
haps, a much stronger resentment than needed to
have occurred. Because I feel, too, that if it hadn’t
been for the really level-headedness of the young
people that were representative of the student
senate, this thing could have become quite a mess,
kind of a riotous situation. But I think it was beau¬
tifully handled, and people held their tempers that
I know normally don’t hold their tempers, [laugh¬
ter]

EDMUND BARMETTLER

And it was a pleasure to see the constraint,
or restraint, that these people maintained. I frankly
think that, really, one of the finest things that hap¬
pened then was this cooler-head type of preva¬
lence that occurred after the disturbance.

Well, this really leads us to the next question. What
actions do you feel were most effective in pre¬
venting more violence or cooling the situation?

Well, several. I think one important consid¬
eration, perhaps not the most important one, was
the president’s request that faculty members fully
participate with the students on campus—the
young people—in their rap discussion: to listen,
to be seen, and be part of it. I think the most im¬
portant thing that held the things together, to keep
it from falling apart at the seams, was the student
group themselves. I think they recognized what
this could develop into, and they were interested
in frying to solve their own problems on campus
without having an interference from outside
forces and having a will imposed from outside
the campus.

You see, even with as little as did happen,
we still have the outside pressure because the
threat was there. The threat continues to be there:
this bonded, long-term idea that students will have
the opportunity to govern themselves, that fac¬
ulty members will continue to have an opportu¬
nity to express themselves in terms of the things
that are part of their professional code, of their
self-government, so to speak. These things are
really very thin relationships that withstood ap¬
parently very little pressure. The threats, really,
of dissolving parliament, so to speak, are quite
real by outside forces, whether they might be the
Board of Regents, or whether they might be some
other agency.

How do you think that events on the campus are
affecting the university’s image with outsiders?
“Image ” is a bad word.

Well, but it expresses what you mean to say,
I'm sure—in other words, the attitude towards
the university. I think we have two broad con¬

cerns. By far, the largest concern is in the general
community that says, “Well, let’s go out and spank
the rascals and shape them up.” This is the rural
attitude, and it’s the downtown merchant attitude.
The idea is, as well, “After all, you don’t run a
business operation this way. You make them toe
the mark, or else you ship them out.” This is the
type of attitude that prevails, but this is not a very
clear-cut thing.

You see, the people are involved, and it’s,
after all, people that are concerned. And in this
day and age society has abdicated the family re¬
sponsibility of training for things like, you know,
sex education and general moral dress, and how
boys and girls will deport themselves in a com¬
munity environment such as a university. It’s
questionable whether the general community
ought to feel as badly about this as they do. It’s
really quite a question whether they have any right
to feel badly, because they’ve really abdicated
over time their basic responsibilities for this sort
of deportment.

So, I’m really kind of struck with a dilemma.
On the one hand, I see the rural or general com¬
munity saying, “Well, this is bad. This is wrong.
I mean, our young people cannot be doing this.
Tell me it’s wrong.” Where on the other hand,
this is exactly how they’ve trained them. They’ve
said, “OK, let’s break down the barriers or the
constraints or the inhibitions that are said about
sex, about morals, about dress, about attitudes,
about language, about speech, and the whole busi¬
ness.” And now, all of a sudden when kids start
practicing their new freedom, they say, “Well,
hold on here. You can’t go printing in the Sage¬
brush some of these vulgarities. It’s contrary to
our more tender ideals.”

It’s a little bit frustrating in a sense that here
come the people who know best in our society,
and say to them that you will allow new free¬
doms to occur with our young people; and then
you turn around and ask them—the people who
are to administer these new freedoms—then
you’ve also got to maintain an order or the ideals
of strong moral fiber within the community.

It’s just kind of an absurdity. With new free¬
doms and with the abridgement of these more

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

perhaps Victorian ideals, you have some things
occurring that you don’t like, because you have a
consequence of actions that you’ve taken. Un¬
fortunately, the consequence of these things that
we see today appeal - to me to be consequences of
actions that were taken five, ten, twenty years ago:
the new liberalism that followed the Second
World War. Because if you go down the student
lists today, you’re struck by the fact that these
youngsters (where it says, you know, the year of
birth, 1951) are the ones that you see more often
occurring on this list, and you’re struck by how
recently this occurred. This happened during the
Korean affair, and we haven’t solved that yet.

So you start wondering: what are people ask¬
ing for? Are they honestly saying that they want
their young people to deport themselves as they
are, or are they really saying that here we want to
establish an institution in which things are run
on a traditional pattern as against the two ex¬
tremes: where in one of them you have kind of a
military academy, and in the other one you have
an absolute laissez-faire type of an institution
where everything goes. And I suppose that they’d
like to have something a little bit to the right of
center, but they haven’t been acting like they are
on the right of center in their own Raining of their
youngsters. They’re a little bit too left of center,
you see, and so consequently, you have this di¬
lemma.

What can the university do to focus public opin¬
ion ?

Well, I think what it is doing: frying to stay
within the confines of its pre-developed code sys¬
tem. In other words, it has a university code and
has laws that govern it through the Board of Re¬
gents. It has an absolute requirement to maintain
order in the sense that it follows its constitutional
constraints. For example, if there are to be reper¬
cussions out of this demonstration, and the indi¬
viduals that are charged are availed of every re¬
course that’s available through the existing law
system, nothing can be done to somehow miti¬
gate their rights under what was the law at the
time of the occurrence. In other words, nothing

can be done in retrospect, for one thing. Secondly,
the university, the faculty, the student body, the
Board of Regents, and perhaps even the commu¬
nity should continue to examine itself in how
these things can be avoided—the faculty, particu¬
larly, because I am part of the faculty, and I have
a part in playing in the leadership in the faculty.

I think it’s incumbent upon the faculty to pro¬
pose measures by which we will judge our ethics
and the way we act and judge the exercise of our
conduct within this community. I’m not sure
whether I’m saying this very well. I’m simply
saying that we’ve got to have the means by which
we make these sorts of judgments, so that people
are quite aware of when they do things contrary
to these sets of values, called ethics, that they
expect to take the consequence in these things.
You see?

Yes. Do you think issues of academic freedom are
involved here in participating in demonstrations?

Oh, yes. Oh, absolutely. There is no question
that academic freedoms are involved. The ques¬
tion about it is this: to what limits? In other words,
what are the limits on an individual to exercise
this thing called “freedom to say whatever he
chooses to say”?

I think it’s true what President Miller, for
example, had stated: what’s contained in almost
every code of ethics printed for university people
(i.e., the AAUP, American Association of Uni¬
versity Professors, and various college codes of
ethics) is that utterances of people that are in pro¬
fessional positions—not only in terms of college,
but in other professional positions—are somehow
accepted as superior to those of the general pub¬
lic. Consequently, you’re faced with being
charged with a responsibility for those utterances.
I mean, why shouldn’t your utterances be ac¬
cepted as being worthy, if in fact you are a wor¬
thy person to make these utterances? Then, there¬
fore, if you step beyond these bounds of worthi¬
ness or of professional skill or knowledge and so
forth, and you do think irresponsibly, you ought
to be charged. I think it’s that simple.

EDMUND BARMETTLER

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally, or should they tty to influence governmen¬
tal policies?

You’re asking a very difficult question, prob¬
ably asking the wrong person. I think four or five
years ago, I would have told you I had a much
different attitude. I’m afraid I would have been
much more militant in my attitude. Currently, and
perhaps because I’m getting older and because
I've taken on a kind of a changed philosophy on
life, I think there’s an expectation within a uni¬
versity that there are some things that the univer¬
sity can attain and that university people ought
to be doing. I am not persuaded that the univer¬
sity ought to be a place for hatching, you know,
conspiracies and things of this sort. And this is
what, in a sense, paid of your question evolves
to: the hatching of conspiracies. If, on the other
hand, you’re asking me, “How can young people
become more politically-minded and become
more politically effective?” I think they have po¬
litical science that can be studied and can be used,
and they can as individual citizens become in¬
volved in both local and national or state poli¬
tics.

I don’t think that it’s a paid of the university
to provide a place for heretics to mix together
and then cause foment, whether political or
whether insurrectionist or anarchist or whatever
it is. I don’t think this is the puipose of a univer¬
sity. If you look at the University of Nevada, for
example, the puipose of the university is really
quite simple and direct. It’s a place for us to ex¬
plore and find answers to questions or to search
for new knowledge. It’s a place for us to express
and to provide an environment for debate and dis¬
cussion. It’s a place where we store knowledge
and keep it together for posterity. It’s a place
where we perhaps inquest into new problems, new
universes, and so forth. And this takes a deliber¬
ate, a more or less calm environment, not that of
the heretic or that of the fomenter of disturbance
and trouble.

I think it’s time that the university, the fac¬
ulty, generally would divest itself of these sorts
of individuals. That doesn’t mean that I object to

dissent or to disagreement, because I think dis¬
agreement properly handled can be immeasurably
useful in seeking after new understandings and
new problems, whole new directions. I’m quite
sure that there are so many things that we don’t
understand that if we didn’t provide the environ¬
ment by which individuals could literally seek
after these things, that we would not progress very
fast. And it’s true that our society probably can
tolerate individuals questing after things in which
we see no material return for many years to come.
But again, this takes a certain type of commu¬
nity, a certain type of academic, and a certain type
of social responsibility that causes these sorts of
things to ultimately be nurtured into a productive
environment where individuals can be creative
and bring forth new ideas. The interesting thing
about it: it doesn’t take vulgarity, it doesn’t take
slugging people around. It can be done. It’s been
done for five hundred years or longer.

Where do you think the peace movemen t is headed
here ?

[sighs] Down the drain, I think. You can dis¬
regard that comment, [laughter] Here, I suppose,
I’m more of a pessimist than anything else, but I
think in terms of future world peace, I think we’re
faced with some very, very difficult times. I think
the next five or ten years will see us with world
hunger of a scope that we have never seen be¬
fore. I think this will generate difficulties that will
make the political issue minor. I think it will cre¬
ate a need for a change in attitude on the part of
people in order to try to solve these very impor¬
tant dilemmas around the world. We may not feel
it here very soon in the United States, but I think
the examples of the 1966 famine in India is a pre¬
amble to this sort of thing. And you see, in 1966
and the following year, 1967, they pointed to the
increase in wheat production and rice production,
to the increase in rice yield, the “green revolu¬
tion” and so forth around the world. I think this
is not going to withstand the pressure of popula¬
tion.

Far more pressing in the future will not be
the peace movement; it will be the ecology ques-

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

tion, the population issue, starvation, and just sim¬
ply the sort of degradation in society that will
take the greatest amount of humanistic effort that
the world has ever seen. And I'm not sure we’ll
solve it. You see, I suppose what I’m saying is
that there is a sort of ecological Armageddon
approaching. You might think I’m an ecological
nut, but I’m really not. I just don’t see at this point
that this Malthusian barrier has been broken, you
see, and that we’re faced with these sorts of is¬
sues.

I don’t know just how much President Nixon
has in terms of this Cambodian invasion to de¬
stroy the enclaves and so forth, the military base
areas. Perhaps this will hasten the end of the war.
I doubt that we will end the war in terms of Ameri¬
can involvement. If it’s not in there, I think it’ll
probably be some place else. I don’t think that
the world’s population will allow America to di¬
vest itself, nor will Americans. I think we retreat
fully into the isolationist concept that we had
before 1930. I don’t think this will ever happen
again.

Sam M. Basta

June 12, 1970

Now, for the record, if you ’ll say your name and
your residence and your position.

My name is Sam M. Basta. I live in Reno.
I’m the dean of students at the University of Ne¬
vada.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

I think the title designates probably the main
reason. As the dean of students, many of these
things are his responsibility, but in this case, it
wasn’t.

OK, good. What was your own reaction to Presi¬
dent Nixon’s decision to go into Cambodia with
United States troops?

Well, I can only react to what the president
said on television, and I presume that he had all
the facts, that he had consulted with all the people
that were directly involved. As he explained it
on television, and on that basis as well as being a
former member of the aimed forces, I think his
actions were justified and needed and necessary.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next here on our
campus?

I think it was directly related. I think there
are far too many people—faculty, other students,
administrators, and community persons—that are
not aware of the sensitivity of many of our stu¬
dents in relationship to the draft, to the war, to
the international situation, the political situation.
The sensitivity that these students have regard¬
ing peace and humanity, I think, is not truly known
by many, many people. So for those students who
reflected this outward expression, I have a great
deal of sympathy for and respect their feeling. I
may not agree with the type of activities that they
indulged in.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to events away from here, and what
was your reaction to the events away from here:
the Kent State affair and some of the others?

Well, I was fortunate—perhaps maybe not
fortunate—in attending the National Association
of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)
conference of the executive board, and I am a
vice-president of that organization. This repre-

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Sam Basta, 1970s.

sented about eighteen deans of students or vice-
presidents for student affairs. We came there with
an established agenda. One of the members of
that association who was called to present the
views of Kent State happened to be the vice-presi¬
dent at Kent State. Rather than continuing on our
original agenda, we discussed Kent State, Jack-
son State, and all of the issues and the problems
and the demonstrations throughout the United
States faced by these deans.

It was our general consensus that on most
campuses and perhaps in the nation that there is
a polarization (undue rhetoric that is causing a
repressive reaction by the right to the left); there
is tension; there is hostility; there are many, many
issues that have surfaced. And I believe that with
some exceptions, students have reacted to this
Cambodia incidence compounded by Kent State
and many other grievances associated with the

university in what is culminating in what I be¬
lieve a serious outlook for the coming school year.

That’s very interesting. Turning now ; to the
Governor’s Day activities here: what did you
think of the arrangements made for the obser¬
vance of Governor’s Day?

If you’re talking about arrangements such as
bringing the governor on, which he’s been doing
for many, many years (and we’ve had ROTC on
this campus since 1888), it’s been an established
program, it’s been a successful program, and it is
a means by which the governor is being honored,
and also the brigade of ROTC is being honored,
rather. It is an annual event that has both positive
and perhaps negative reactions from various
people.

I believe the arrangements were adequate;
they were appropriate. And I believe that students
in ROTC should enjoy the same rights and privi¬
leges as any other group of students. They have a
right to be presented with awards, the same as in
Phi Kappa Phi or others. However, the tensions
of the country—Kent State, that whole thing—
compounded the problem. I don’t believe, though,
as some students said, that with the unfortunate
incidents that occurred we should have canceled
it. I’m not quite sure that would have been ap¬
propriate. I believe that the rights of all people
must be protected. If one person loses his rights,
we all lose our rights. It was an unfortunate time;
the timing was unfortunate; the situations, as such,
were unfortunate. So it’s very difficult for any¬
one to really project what we should have done.

What was your reaction to the demonstration ?

[sighs] Well, as a native of this state, a gradu¬
ate of this institution, and as a dean of students
for many, many years, I am on that basis, I sup¬
pose, called a dedicated person to the university,
the student body, and the state. And based on a
belief in this country, a belief in the good Lord,
and a belief that man should be a rational human
being (though at times all of us are irrational), I

SAM M. BASTA

was very disappointed, disillusioned, downright
disgusted with the actions of the group of stu¬
dents and, unfortunately, some professors and
teaching assistants. I thought the incidence was
completely uncalled for. It had no bearing what¬
soever on the activities. However, as I’ve said
previously, with these students and the profes¬
sors, I admire their deep sense of feeling about
the war and about Cambodia, about Kent State,
and about the issues of peace. I don’t believe that
peace can be acquired in this way.

I believe peace is something we must all in
some way fight for. Some of us do it one way;
many of us do it in another way. I do not believe
in peace at any price, and yet my heart goes out
to many of those people who felt as strongly as
they did. Perhaps they, in their own way, felt that
this was the appropriate thing to do. I tend to dis¬
agree with them. I felt that they were infringing
upon the rights of the president, the governor, and
all the dignitaries, plus the students out in the
field. I felt that that they had a right to be there,
and I felt further that their rights were being in¬
fringed upon. It seems to me that there ought to
be other ways of expressing and reflecting these
deep feelings without offending or creating situ¬
ations that have developed a backlash and a po¬
larization on campus as well as off.

Did you feel it was necessary to participate in
the activities on Governor’s Day or the demon¬
stration ?

Well, as the dean of students, as a member of
the administrative staff, and as the coordinator
of ROTC, I felt it was my duty and my obligation
when I was invited to attend. I tend to support
the ROTC program. I may have some questions
or doubts about its mandatory or its voluntary
provision. I happen to believe in a nation that is
well-armed and in a position to defend its way of
life by many ways through our ROTC program.
These young people do not like war; they want
peace. They feel that their going through an
ROTC program as officers and as leaders is a

much better way of utilizing their potential than
as a private.

I don’t believe in war; I hate war. Anyone
who’s served in the service feels the same way,
but I have seen war in its ugliest way. I’ve par¬
ticipated in many, many campaigns and battles. I
would not like to see my sons, who arc eligible
for the draft, go through the same thing. On the
other hand, I think this country must be prepared,
and I’d rather see a civilian army rather than a
professional army. I think we need a cross-fer¬
tilization from our young people in colleges to
become included within the professional army
category. I have ambivalences about this, but com¬
ing from a family of ten children whose parents
came from the old country, from Yugoslavia, and
who have been allowed the opportunity to go
through public schools and on to college, et cetera,
perhaps those of us who are first generation may
have a more sensitive feeling about why this coun¬
try is so great.

OK. What did you think was the most effective
part of the demonstration that took place up in
the stadium?

[laughter] “Effective” is a word kind of hard
to analyze. I think the effectiveness was negative
in this concept. That is, the people that are pro¬
testing or dissenting could have achieved their
objectives and goal in a more peaceful, more dig¬
nified, and in my judgment, more honorable way.
I think if they would have marched around the
stadium as they did—peacefully, calmly, and with
their pickets, signs, and outward concerns—and
sat in the stadium, as all the rest of us did, I would
have been more receptive to their feelings. By
showing their signs and perhaps by other ways
of expression—showing their disregard for war
and military establishment, their concern for
peace and for humanity— maybe if they would
have done that and shown this in a concerned way,
I would have been more receptive to their feel¬
ings. I was extremely offended. I was extremely
irritated and at one time thought I should get up

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

to the mike and try to calm them down. The presi¬
dent did on two occasions, and I felt it was not
my position to do so after he had spoken.

What did you think was the most effective part of
the Governor’s Day observance?

Well, there were so many things that hap¬
pened, so many people were upset, and so many
incidents that occurred. I believe the most effec¬
tive thing that occurred was the poise, the dig¬
nity, the coolness and calmness of those young
men out in uniform being harassed and being sub¬
jected to a lot of vilifications that were unjust
and uncalled for. And I think they won the ball
game. It shows—to me, at least—that their train¬
ing and their coolness under fire is a mark of lead¬
ership and self-discipline seldom displayed.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various factions involved here—the ROTC,
the demonstrators, the university administra¬
tion—when the conflict developed?

That reminds me. As a former coach, it’s
much easier to call the signals Monday morning
than it is during the time. What signals we could
have called during that time is open to conjec¬
ture and question and doubt. I really don’t have a
quick answer. I don’t think anybody had a quick
answer. I think the situation evolved in such a
way—and with the crowd that was creating the
incident—that I don’t know what we could have
done to calm them.

I believe that what we didn’t do is important:
the fact that we didn’t call the police, and we
didn’t bring in some tactics of repression. I do
believe something should have been done, said. I
really don’t know. I think I would have done
something different. I’m looking at it from over¬
all. I believe that I should have gotten on the mike
and attempted in as calm a way as possible to
talk to the group, to individual students and lead¬
ers within their group, to express my concern as
the dean of students, and perhaps should have
said something to the effect that “I am holding
you leaders responsible, both students and fac¬

ulty, to maintain a calmness about the situation
and failure on your paid to not keep it calm.” I
would say that I would be forced, as far as the
student leaders were concerned, to bring disci¬
plinary action. And as far as the faculty was con¬
cerned, I would say that I would report them to
the president for whatever action they and the
faculty wanted to do. Perhaps that may not have
been effective; I don’t know. But looking back
on it, I could have been very easily shouted down,
just like they did with the president. I really don’t
know. I would not have called the police.

It’s really a tough situation, isn’t it? [laughter]

Very tense.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the fire bombing?

Well, I didn’t think, again, that this would
ever happen on this campus. Though I have no
basis of fact or frame of reference, I honestly do
not believe that it was students from the Univer¬
sity of Nevada. I believe—though I could never
prove it—that they were non-students, either from
California or even within this community. And I
believe that the fire bombing that occurred at
Hartman Hall was caused by the same people that
threw the one in Hobbit Hole. And I believe that
it was intended to create a polarization, tension,
backlash, diffusion, and perhaps hatred and hos¬
tility.

What kinds of or what category of participant —
the students, faculty, or outsiders—do you think
was most effective in stirring up violence on the
campus ? You just touched on this, but I think you
might expand it a little.

Well, the word “violence” bothers me. I think
the fire bombing was violence, but I don’t think
the stadium was violent. I think there were some
very active student leaders who were directly in¬
volved in initiating the march through the cam¬
pus and up to the stadium. I’m sorry to say that I
believe that certain faculty members were also

SAM M. BASTA

directly involved in creating the incident, tend¬
ing to get the students involved—and once they
got involved, I think the problem got bigger than
themselves. I think it got out of hand, and I think
the leaders, both students and members of the
faculty, should be held accountable.

Do you think outsiders were important?

I don’t think in the initial stages, no. I think
the student leaders that were actively participants
who organized it should be held accountable.
Outsiders may have come in later, and they might
have been infiltrated within the group, but I also
believe that for the student leaders and the fac¬
ulty members (who were also part of the leader¬
ship), maybe what they wanted to do was not the
thing that happened, and I tend to agree. But I
think it got out of hand, and I think they ought to
be held accountable.

Once a person assumes a leadership role,
which they did in leading that group—and I ob¬
served them personally—I think they ought to be
held accountable for what happened. I don’t be¬
lieve, really, that they attempted to create this
thing. It just grew out of the mob psychology;
it’s that way. So, I don’t think they intended to
create the thing that occurred.

What actions do you feel were most important in
cooling off the situation here after the fire bomb¬
ing?

Well, since I was very directly involved in
this, along with other administrators and faculty
members and students, I think it was the rap ses¬
sions that occurred, and the fact that I, as the dean
of students, became visible to all groups by go¬
ing around the campus, attending the rap sessions,
being involved, listening to all the groups, both
long-hairs and cowboys (if we can use those
words). I went to every picket line, every picket;
I talked with all of the young people that were
holding signs and who represented the long-hair;
I talked with the cowboys. I kept up a steady dia¬
logue with these youngsters and told them that I
didn’t want anybody hurt, and I didn’t want any¬

body mistreating them, that if this happened, they
should come to my office and get a hold of me,
that I didn’t want the police involved. And it
worked.

I was just one person. There were many oth¬
ers, many other faculty members (not too many,
unfortunately), and some students. And in the
bowl during the memorial services, we knew what
was going to happen. The cowboys were going
to organize on the quad and march down. The
campus police were alerted; I alerted them. They
also alerted the city police. We didn’t know what
was going to happen. A police officer was there;
I had my staff there; I was visible in the bowl. I
wandered around, talked with all kinds of people,
including the five non-students that we had fo¬
cused our attention upon.

When the cowboys came down in the bowl, I
confronted them and told them that I expected
them to conduct themselves in a manner that was
not to be the same as at the stadium, even though
they felt strongly about it. They told me they were
not coming there to create any disruption; they
came there to show how they could behave and
to prove to the “long-hairs” that they could sit
quietly during the memorial services and act in a
way that they should have acted in the stadium.

So, between sixty and seventy marched down
behind the mike, sat. I followed them slowly with¬
out any form of a panic, conversed with the cam¬
pus policemen, sat and talked, and stood behind
them. There were no noises. They made no cat¬
calls. They were quiet, were peaceful, and were
ladies and gentleman.

When the services were over, one of their
group—the most articulate one—started towards
the mike. I followed him. I was quite a distance,
but I got there just after he began to request that
he have the privilege of speaking his opinion on
how they felt. I grabbed his arm very calmly and
quietly, and told him that I felt that these were
memorial services, not a public forum, and I felt
that if he wanted to present his side of the case,
that we ought to set up another place for this to
be done. Since I knew him personally, and he
knew me, and hopefully respected me, he came
with me to where the group was.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

I talked with him; I talked with the other stu¬
dent leaders of that group. Reverend Dodson was
there and a few others, and I was trying to con¬
vince them to express their opinions in other
ways, preferably away from the bowl. Fortunately,
there was a meeting already set up for this in the
agriculture building, and I encouraged them to
go. Only three or four real strong-willed, heavy-
set persons were looking for a fight, and after
some persuasion I convinced them that this was
the way to do it, and they did. And fortunately,
nothing happened.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image with outsiders?

Unfortunately, the polarization that exists on
this campus, the factionalization that’s on this
campus between students, faculty, and adminis¬
tration, I believe has further polarized off cam¬
pus. I think the backlash is most hostile, most
severe, and unfortunate. I think the university—
all of us from the university—have failed to re¬
late to the outside community what a university
is, what a university stands for, and what the real
issues are on campus, amongst the students par¬
ticularly.

I think the image has been distorted, because
the vast, vast majority of students are fine, up¬
standing young people. They are not violence-
oriented; they are concerned young people. Much
of their education they question. They question
the academic process. It’s a process they’re con¬
cerned about: grading, teacher evaluation, cur¬
riculum revision, relevancy, freedom of choice
in classes, boring classes, the meaning of their
grades, the meaning of their degrees, the puipose
of an education, the puipose of the university and
many other issues that are of concern to them—
the process of education, period, and all of its
ramifications.

Plus, they’re concerned about the world and
the country, about racial injustices, of social in¬
justices, about war, the bomb, the hypocrisy that
exists in a society, the materialism, the interna¬

tional situation, the world so small, pollution.
These are things that are of concern to these young
people. Though they don’t say so by numbers,
many of them feel quite strongly about this. And
the outside community looks upon college stu¬
dents, and they’re categorized by the outside
people as long-hairs, guilt-ridden, dope-ridden,
and violence-oriented—which they’re not.

What can the university do to focus public opin¬
ion ?

If I knew that answer, I would be the salva¬
tion of something. But I can only say that there
are many, many factors that are involved here. I
think the university, per se, as we know it today,
is not the same university it will be in a few years.
Universities must change; processes must be
changed. The lawful puipose of a university must
be fairly well established and known by all.
Whether a university is to become a microcosm
and become involved in the outside community,
whether it should return to the ivory tower,
whether it should be politicized—these are the
issues. And until those are resolved and the uni¬
versity community truly becomes a university
community, we cannot project outward unani¬
mously to the people.

If universities do not change to meet the ob¬
vious needs of students, if universities do not
become more concerned in a humanitarian way
about students, if universities do not change the
curriculum and the teaching process, we’re go¬
ing to be in real serious trouble. So, when we talk
about the town-gown relationship as it is, I’m
wondering what this university is going to do,
because we are not a community college at the
present time, if at any time. And universities are,
more or less, based upon assumptions and tradi¬
tions.

The unfortunate thing is that many of the
outside community members, particularly alumni,
do not really see and understand the changes that
are taking place in our student bodies and in the
university. They look back ten, twenty, and thirty

SAM M. BASTA

years. And this is a new generation, and I hon¬
estly believe there is a new emerging student cul¬
ture, which we’ve got to identify and guide—not
manipulate it, but guide it. And we must exert all
efforts to do this. Until then, we’ve got to tell the
people what we at the university community want
to do and need to do.

That’s good—do you think issues of academic
freedom are involved in participating in demon¬
strations?

Academic freedom connotations can be in¬
terpreted in so many ways by so many people,
and perhaps my definition of academic freedom
may not be parallel to others. It’s my understand¬
ing that academic freedom means that a profes¬
sor or a student has the right and the freedom to
seek the truth, wherever it may lead, and that they
should relate or teach the truth as they’ve found
it, without retribution, without loss of prestige of
job. Because as a scholar, he must seek the truth
and publish the truth and have security in this
feeling that he would not be chastised or termi¬
nated because of it. It also means, as I see it, the
right to speak out on issues of concern as an indi¬
vidual citizen of those things that he feels he
should, not as a member of the academic com¬
munity necessarily, but as a citizen, a concerned
citizen.

There are some who hide behind academic
freedom and use it as a cloak to insulate them¬
selves within the academy, which I think is wrong.
I believe all of us need to express ourselves on
those things of concern to us. I feel that far too
many of us fail to express ourselves in an appro¬
priate way, which is by way of saying that free¬
dom ends at the other guy’s nose. And when my
rights are infringed upon, I will fight for these
rights. By that I don’t mean by fisticuffs, but I
certainly would have stood up if provoked, be¬
cause if my rights or a student’s rights or a fac¬
ulty member’s rights are infringed upon, and no¬
body does anything about it, then we have no
rights. It’s a very delicate line between freedom
and rights and responsibility, which unfortunately

much is not said about it. We talk about academic
freedom. We should also say academic responsi¬
bility and student responsibility and dean’s re¬
sponsibility, I think (if that’s an answer).

That’s very good. How can students and faculty
be effective politically, or should they be trying
to influence governmental policy?

I think all of us should be active politically.
We should be concerned and committed on those
issues of concern to us. There are ways of influ¬
encing government decisions in a democratic so¬
ciety which could be done if we act individually
as students, as citizens, not representing the uni¬
versity in any way. Yes, I don’t believe the uni¬
versity can commit itself in totality on political
issues. By doing so, ultimately you will get reac¬
tions from the outside community and become
politicized. I don’t believe this is what we want,
because once you get in the political arena, we’re
all going to be subjected to criticisms and harass¬
ment, because many people will disagree with it.

In a university community, I believe you can¬
not get total agreement, and perhaps that’s the
way it should be. A university is a place where
ideas are presented; it’s a marketplace of ideas.
They should be uncovered. These ideas ought to
be focused and merged and surfaced, and all of
us should expose all of us to ideas. That’s what a
university is all about. You’ll never have total
agreement. Even some of us may never have any
reasonable agreement, but what’s important is the
ideas are surfaced: discussion, debate, critical
analysis is taking place. The important thing is
that understanding develops as to why people
have their opinions and beliefs and ideas. That’s
what a university is all about. To say “not be in¬
volved politically” is wrong.

Where do you think the peace movemen t is headed
now in this area?

Well, as a father of two sons who are eligible
for the draft and listening to my sons and getting
involved with many other students who have sirni-

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

lar feeling, “peace” is a clouded word. I’m not
one of those people who believe in peace at any
price. I believe that peace must be fought for, and
it takes two to dance. And until we arrive at a
reasonable understanding of what peace is all
about and establish what peace means, then I can
more accurately and intelligently say where it’s
going.

Because I don’t know what peace is. We have
not had peace, in my definition, since 1776: until
man truly becomes a man who has no fears; where
there are no racial injustices, no social injustices;
where government is completely sensitive to man;
where we don’t have to lock our doors at night
before we go to bed; where we don’t have police
officers or armies or navies. If this is what peace
is, I don’t think we’ll achieve it. Man is not infal¬
lible, and man, by nature, tends to be selfish, and
this infringes upon others. And so if we talk about
Jefferson and Hamilton, and we talk about peace
that has been discussed and written about for cen¬
turies, I have no answer.

Would you like to make some other comments
about this whole situation?

Yes. I would like to close by saying that the
National Association of Student Personnel Ad¬
ministrators (which represents twenty-one hun¬
dred deans of students, vice-presidents for stu¬
dent affairs, and student personnel officers
throughout this country and Canada) is seriously
concerned about the situation on campuses
throughout this country. We believe, as a group,
that something needs to be done in regards to the
situation both at the national, the state, and local
level.

The rhetoric and polarization resulting from
rhetoric and the incidents that have occurred on
many campuses has reached a proportion that we
consider serious enough that we may establish
action programs throughout this country on our
campuses wherein we must get people together
to talk, to dialogue, to meet, to discuss—all fac¬
tions involved, both at the national, state, regional,
and local level. We are doing this. We’re going

to have a crisis control center hopefully in Wash¬
ington that’ll be directed by a dean on leave of
absence. We are going to try to get government
leaders, people in higher education, labor lead¬
ers, others that are in concern, to tty to work out
a better understanding of issues today. Hopefully,
we can go to regional, then to local areas. We
feel that the problems projected for the next com¬
ing year are serious enough that we’ve got to get
together. I believe that reasonable men sitting
down discussing can come up with a reasonable
solution.

That’s very good. Do you want a restriction on
your interview?

By restriction, I don’t know. I don’t think I’ve
said anything I didn’t say was honest and true,
and I think it can be used if they want to use it. I
didn’t mention names. These are all my own feel¬
ings, my own honest opinions, and they’re not
intended to harm anyone or to infringe upon char¬
acter or assassinate any person or whatever. It’s a
real deep concern I have.

James Blink

May 27, 1970

So, just for the record, if you will say your name
and your hometown, what class you ’re in, and
what your major is and so forth.

OK. My name’s Jim Blink. I’m from
Henderson, Nevada; my major is engineering
science, and I'm a graduating senior.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

I think it’s very possibly because I was the
drill team commander out there at Governor’s
Day, so I was pretty well involved in the proceed¬
ings.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's
Cambodia decision?

Militarily, I thought it was a very wise thing
to do. I think it saved a lot of lives in the long
run, because Cambodia has been a sanctuary and
a supply base for Vietnam for a long time. Just in
the first few days that they went in, they did so
much to hurt the enemy logistically that I think

that it will turn out to save a lot of lives in the
end, especially if he pulls back out of there and
doesn’t try to make it a major front, but reserves
the right to go in at periods of time and clean out
the supply bases.

Very good. In what way do you think the Cambo¬
dia decision was related to what happened next
on our campus?

Well, I think this campus is not in the fore¬
front of the nation’s campuses as far as protest¬
ing or demonstrating. Other campuses, such as
Kent State of course, did react very violently to
this, and there were people killed. I think this is
what kind of triggered off the situation at Ne¬
vada.

What was your own reaction to what happened
in other parts of the country as a result of the
Cambodia decision? You mentioned Kent State
as one.

I think it’s very sad, and Kent State was only
a part of it. When people get a cause, they let
their emotions take over and override their rea¬
son. These students at Kent State, for instance,

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

ran wild through the streets destroying property
and breaking store windows and so forth, even
before the national guard was called out (which
is why it was called out). I think it’s sad that this
can happen.

However, I recognize that’s just a human
characteristic, and it isn’t just limited to students;
it’s also very present in the national guardsmen.
These people are called out, and they’re standing
there face to face with the demonstrators, taking
the worst possible kind of abuse, and some of it
possibly even physical with the rocks and so forth.
I think their emotions can take over for them, too.
So I think that because of this, both sides should
be protected from an escalation by the national
guardsmen firing. The national guardsmen I don’t
think should have any ammunition. I think gas
and bayonets is sufficient to keep off anybody in
the front lines.

I think there is a definite danger when the
students just pull some of the tactics like they do
in Japan and some other countries and just try to
oveiTun them. I think at the very most, they should
maybe have snipers on the roof where they’re
removed from the emotional climate of the dem¬
onstration. But I definitely think people right there
in front lines should have as little as possible:
they should just be able to protect themselves and
stand their ground. I don’t think they should be
killing, because it’s just so sad when somebody
gets killed in something like this.

Regarding the Governor’s Day activities here,
what did you think of the arrangements made for
the obsetyances?

I thought the arrangements were fine in all
but one respect. I think it’s fine that the demon¬
strators were allowed to march around the track;
however, I thought that they should have acted
their ages and gone in the stands and been quiet
after they had been heard and not try to disrupt
other people. I think that was an extreme lack of
manners, just extremely rude, not only to other
university students who were respecting them and
standing quietly, but also to the president and to

the governor, and especially to parents of people
that were killed. I think there’s just no excuse for
ridiculing somebody that’s been killed.

I thought that the only thing that was wrong
was that the university police were ordered to
keep hands off the Negroes. (I don’t know if it
was President Miller or Chief Malone who had
ordered it.) I think the whole thing was kind of
pushed on by the Negroes going out and sitting
on the field. When the demonstrators were not
allowed to have the microphone during the middle
of the ceremonies to finalize their plans for what
would happen afterwards, they seemed to get very
angry, and they went out and joined the Negroes
out on the field.

The Negroes weren’t causing any trouble;
they were just sitting there trying to make their
presence felt, but I think it was the wrong place.
I think the field was reserved for the people us¬
ing it. I think they could have sat in the stands.
Because they were out there and they were get¬
ting away with it, and the police obviously were
told to keep their hands off and not do anything,
the demonstrators also went down there.

I think it was very, very tense when the drill
team performed. There could very possibly have
been a riot of major proportions where somebody
could have got hurt pretty badly. And I think that
was the one mistake they made. I think they
should have asked the Negroes to leave the field
immediately when they got out there and escorted
them up to the stands. And I think the Negroes,
once they’d made themselves heard, would have
gone up there. I don’t think they’re unreasonable.

Well, you kind of said what your reaction to the
demonstration was, but would you like to expand
on what you said about your reactions to the dem¬
onstration?

Well, I was standing there during the march
around the field, and I didn’t see anything wrong
with the march until they got behind the people
that were standing, waiting patiently. They got
abusive personally, and I think there’s no need
for this. They were protesting the Vietnam War

JAMES BLINK

or the Cambodian invasion or the killings at Kent
State—that had nothing to do with the people on
the field and ROTC. And I think that it, again,
shows their immaturity, if they’re going to be
personal about it. I think that’s the wrong tactics
to take. It’s kind of fear tactics. It’s a tactic of
ridiculing somebody that’s doing something they
don’t like, and I just don’t think it has any place
on the campus.

Did you participate in any of the demonstrations?

No, I didn’t participate. I’ve gone to some of
the peace rallies, both last year and this year, just
to see what was going on. It’s my personal opin¬
ion that the peace rallies don’t really do much. I
think the way to change this is if the majority of
the country really feel that the war should be
stopped, they’re the ones that elect our congress¬
men. (And these demonstrators would like people
to believe they are the majority.) I think it’s kind
of strange to note that the major opposition in
Congress to the war comes from the Senate and
not from the House, and the House is supposedly
more responsive to the people.

So I think that if they are going to be suc¬
cessful, the proper tactics for them to use are not
fear and demonstrations, or trying to influence
public opinion. I think they should try to get their
people elected to Congress. There are certainly
enough people running on the peace ticket to
make it a true showing. I think that when you
demonstrate this way, it does good in a sense and
has a positive effect in the country: if it’s well
done, if it doesn’t cause any material damage,
and if it doesn’t abuse other people’s rights. But
when it is done lousy and they damage property,
break store windows, and infringe on other
people’s rights (like blocking traffic or stopping
classes), I think then it has a negative effect on
public opinion.

What should have been the reaction of the vari¬
ous factions to the conflict that developed, the
various factions as we ’ve laid them out here: the
ROTC, the university administration, and the

demonstrators themselves? What should have
been their reaction to the conflict that erupted?

You mean at Governor’s Day?

At Governor’s Day or afterwards.

Well, as far as I can see, there was no con¬
flict at Governor’s Day, because it was one-sided.
The demonstrators did their best to raise people’s
tempers and to start something, and it wasn’t
done. The closest it came to conflict was when
the drill team did march, and as I understand it, a
few people did get in the way of bayonets. There
weren’t any major injuries, but the bayonets are
sharp.

I think it’s sad, and I think if anybody had
jumped at anybody in the drill team, there would
have been some people very badly hurt on both
sides. And I think that the ROTC people did a
fantastic job, because, like I say, I was in ranks. I
was not with the drill team during the majority of
the proceedings, because I was getting an award,
so I was kind of in the middle of the ranks, and I
heard what was going on, and people were talk¬
ing and discussing things and trying to keep their
cool, and I think they did. They were very dis¬
gusted about it. Everybody wanted to get off the
field and leave, but nobody would do it just be¬
cause of the fact that they would then be giving
the demonstrators their way.

I think the administration did an excellent job
of handling it; they definitely didn’t inflame
things. I thought President Miller picked the ap¬
propriate time to try to calm things down, al¬
though I don’t think there’s any way he could
have, you know, stopped it. I think that of the
demonstrators during the proceedings after the
march, there was only a very small minority that
were causing a disruption.

I don’t think the whole demonstration should
be condemned just because of them, although I
think that they did hurt the whole thing for ev¬
erybody. The rest of them should have tried to
stop them if they felt that way instead of just sit¬
ting there and kind of being disgusted at it. The

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

only thing I can see the administration did wrong
is that they let the Negroes go on the field, and
that kind of precipitated everybody going down
there, and it could have got bad.

I noticed after they marched around the field,
the majority of the demonstrators went up in the
stands, and they very quickly shut up and sat there
and tried to make themselves small. I don’t think
they enjoyed it at all. The small minority, of
course, they were just kind of caught up in their
emotions, and there was no stopping them out¬
side of taking them away, and I don’t think that
should be done.

I think they kind of ruined their own thing. I
think maybe next year, when the university plans
Governor’s Day, they shouldn’t dismiss classes.
They should make arrangements for people to be
excused if they have to participate, and I think
maybe they should hold it indoors some place
off campus—say, the fairgrounds or the coliseum.
It is a military ceremony, it honors people in
ROTC, and it gives the governor a chance to see
the campus. If the campus isn’t going to accept
him, if they’re going to instead just use his pres¬
ence as an excuse to raise trouble, I think maybe
that the opportunity shouldn’t be given—and
maybe it should be isolated. It can be open to the
public, but if it was held indoors or something
like that, it would be much easier to control.

Very good. What was your reaction to the vio¬
lence then that followed Governor’s Day—the
burning of Hartman Hall and the fire bombing at
the Hobbit Hole?

Well, I don’t really have any information on
that as to who did it, but it would seem to me that
it’s excellent psychology for somebody that would
be trying to promote violence on campus: first
hit one side and then hit the other side and get
them mad. It’s kind of like these chicken fights
they have in Mexico where you go to one and
then the other until they get mad enough where
they fight each other. The reaction to the bomb¬
ing of Hartman Hall by the people in ROTC was,

I thought, pretty good. They were mad about it,
but they wouldn’t assign the blame to anyone,
and this starts right with Colonel Hill and goes
down to the lowest freshman.

There were some people that were hot-headed
about it, but everybody agreed that they didn’t
know who did it, and it wouldn’t do any good to,
you know, tty to retaliate. Of course, there were
jokes about the Hobbit Hole and everything, but
I think nothing was serious. This is something
that went around the campus—people joking
about it—and I think it was taken very well. The
ROTC students did go up there, and they sat at
Hartman Hall all weekend until a fire alarm sys¬
tem was put in so that now it’s automatic, of
course. It’s very strange to me that the thing at
the Hobbit Hole would happen right after some¬
body comes home like that. I know if I was plan¬
ning to bomb a place, and I saw somebody just
walk in the door, I certainly wouldn’t do it then,
because there’s a chance of being seen. So, I re¬
ally don’t know. If it was caused by somebody
on the outside, they had excellent motives, but
motive doesn’t prove a crime.

So, it could have been caused by either side,
but I don’t think so. I don’t think anybody on this
campus is really militant enough or violent
enough to get enough support to do such a thing.
Anybody that did it was, you know, obviously
mentally deranged. I think they had no basis for
doing that. It was emotionally caused, again, but
there wasn’t anything really to bring our emo¬
tions up to such a pitch, unless their avowed cause
was to just destroy. I think it’s very deplorable,
but then I think it shows that the people of this
campus, the majority of them do have cool enough
heads to think something out and not get all ex¬
cited about it and go off and destroy the rest of
the campus. So I think it definitely showed the
maturity of most of the students on the campus
on both sides.

That’s very good. What category of participant
in these demonstrations—the students or the fac¬
ulty or ou tsiders—do you feel was most effective
in fomenting the violence?

JAMES BLINK

Again, I wasn’t that close to that side of it. I
am the staff assistant in the dorm, so I know some
people. I know one student in particular who I
would have expected to be a leader of this, who
attended all the meetings, but he has told me that
he wasn’t a leader.

Maybe it was outside people. I didn’t know
Professor Adamian by sight until the demonstra¬
tion, but I saw this man, and I recognized him as
a member of the faculty, who seemed to be lead¬
ing the thing and goading people on (he obvi¬
ously wasn’t a student). I just kind of looked at
him, and I thought, “What’s this guy doing out
there?” Later, when I found out it was Adamian,
then it kind of all clicked with the reports. But I
kept my eye on him through the whole thing.

I was disgusted that a member of the faculty
would lead such a thing. I think that a member of
the faculty has a perfect right to protest, but when
he gets out there and leads the student movement,
it’s something that’s obviously immature and
against both the faculty code of ethics and any

ethics the students have. (Supposedly the ASUN
has been pushing for the bill of rights, and they
finally got it.) Students are supposedly being
treated as mature adults, and when an older fac¬
ulty member gets out there and lets himself get
out of control and goads other people on, I think
that’s just terrible. I don’t think he should be al¬
lowed to do such a thing. If he just marched
around quietly and made his protest, that’d be
fine, but he was a leader.

If students can be immature, I can understand
that partly. They’re young, and they can be eas¬
ily influenced. When they have a cause like this,
it’s very easy for them to get out of hand. But I
don’t think a man that old with that much experi¬
ence should be able to be carried away by that—
and even if he is carried away, he shouldn’t be
leading the whole thing.

What actions do you think were most effective in
preventing more violence or in cooling the situa¬
tion ?

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

I think, for one, President Miller’s announce¬
ment at Governor’s Day, and secondly—and
probably most important—was Doug Sherman [a
university policeman], I also tried to watch him,
and he freely walked into the people that were
demonstrating and talked to them. I think just his
presence alone was effective. Later, I found out
that it had been publicized nationally. I’ve seen it
in papers from South Carolina and also New York.
Doug Sherman got a write-up as being one of the
leaders of the demonstration as far as planning
it. If he helped plan it and then could go out there
and help keep it cool, even while he was wealing
his uniform, I think this is possibly one of the
best things that could happen on this campus. I
think Doug Sherman and President Miller kept it
down, and also the people in ROTC not reacting
outwardly.

How do you think that these events on our cam¬
pus affect the university’s image outside?

Well, I don’t know. Evidently, there was an
alumnus who started a movement against the
university, but I don’t think it’s going to go any¬
where. There’s people like Senator Slattery, who
did everything in his power to inflame more vio¬
lence. From reading his statements, I think he’s
just totally irresponsible. However, I know Sena¬
tor Slattery has never had a very good opinion of
students in the university unless they’re very quiet
and attend all their classes. You know, all he thinks
the school is for, I believe, is just academics. I
think you learn a lot more.

I think there is so much to be learned by the
majority of the people on this campus from the
events of Governor’s Day on. I think it’s really
helped the campus as far as the students are in
mind, and I think it’s really awakened a lot of
them. I think it’s affected some of the legislators
in a very bad way, but I don’t think they’re going
to cut off the funds to the university. They’d be
foolish to. It’s a state university, and if they cut
off the funds, I think it’d have a huge effect in
lowering the enrollment, but I don’t think it would
accomplish any puipose.

The older people, the more conservative
people, of course, are going to be affected by this,
but I think people that sit and think about it and
read all the reports will realize that the students
on this campus and everybody concerned—and
maybe especially the police—handled it very
well. I think maybe the university will come off
in a better light because of it in the end. But right
at the beginning, people just get uptight about it,
and I think it’s already cooling down.

I know it was played up very much in Las
Vegas from calls they got from relatives back
there. The papers and the radio stations were play¬
ing it up like this campus was burning or some¬
thing. And, I don’t know; I think it’s pretty sad
that newspapers have to use sensationalism just
to sell their newspapers, but I guess that’s the way
they do it.

Well, what can the university do to focus public
opinion ?

I think maybe some in-depth stories released
to the news media. I think the quick reactions by
Frankie Sue Del Papa and President Miller to ir¬
responsible journalism, such as the editorial that
was on the one television station, helped a lot. I
think the leaders on the campus are frying to keep
their opinions out, and it seemed like everybody,
no matter what their opinion, came out after the
fire bombings and said, “This has got to stop.” I
think that, really, the university is kind of focus¬
ing public attention. I know that for people on
the outside, their interest has almost gone away.
It’s almost been a passing thing. They think it’s
all completely gone.

Do you feel that the issue of academic freedom
enters in there?

Yes, I do. I think that the faculty should have
the academic freedom to go out and protest if they
want. I don’t think that has anything to do with
his position (outside of the fact that he might be
leading the students). I don’t think he should have
a position of leadership in the student affairs, but

JAMES BLINK

if he wants to go out and as a citizen protest, that’s
fine. I don’t really know if that’s academic free¬
dom. I think that’s just part of his freedom as a
citizen.

It’s a non-academic restriction, maybe, but I
think the students also have the freedom. I think
that this bit about canceling classes for every little
thing—whether it be Mackay Day or Governor’s
Day or the Honors Convocation or whatever—is
kind of leading up to something, because now
the students want some say in when classes can
be canceled. I think it’s unreasonable to cancel
classes for something like this. When the base¬
ball team or the football team or anybody—the
debate team, the drill team—goes out, everybody
makes arrangements with their teachers, and I
don’t think there’s hardly anybody that gets pe¬
nalized for not attending class. I think attending
class is a right of the student. I don’t think it’s
something he should be forced to do. I think it’s
part of his academic freedom that if he can do the
work in the class without attending it, then that’s
his privilege. And the instructors should grade
on the results, not on whether the person attends
or not. If a lot of students don’t attend the class,
then I think the professor should maybe look at
that a little bit and say, “Well, maybe they’re not
getting much from me if they can do it without
me,” and maybe change himself a little bit. I know
there’s a lot of professors on this campus that
never have to say a word about attendance, and
they have very good attendance compared to the
rest, because they’re good.

It seems that the instructors that are saying,
“You have three cuts for the semester” (or what¬
ever, something like this), have to say it, or they
would lose some of their students. But I think it’s
up to the student. It’s his responsibility to pass
the class. If he can do it without attending—fine.
But I think that the idea of canceling classes for
these things is kind of bad, except for maybe
something that is an all-school holiday that’s
planned for a whole semester ahead so that who¬
ever is teaching the class can make the arrange¬
ments.

But when you go ahead and cancel something
a couple of days before it happens, I think you
kind of upset faculty members. I think that in any
case, unless it’s canceled for the whole school,
the faculty members should be there. Because this
was argued out at the senate, and it just seems so
unreasonable to me. They finally decided that if
the student didn’t want to go, he didn’t have to;
if the faculty member didn’t want to go, he didn’t
have to. But if the teacher’s not there, what good
does it do for the student to go to class?

So, I think the faculty should be there. I think
that they’re being paid by contract to teach, and
whether there’s one person there or the whole
class, they should have to teach. And they
shouldn’t be canceling classes unless it’s some¬
thing that’s a necessity, like going to a conven¬
tion or something that has to do with the univer¬
sity. For a protest as a citizen, they have their
own time to do that, and they shouldn’t tty to do
it on the students’ time, because the students have
paid for that time. So, I guess that’s what is meant
by academic freedom.

As far as discussing things in class, this was
brought up, of course, by one person, and I wasn’t
in his classes. We discussed current affairs in a
lot of my classes. I spent a lot of time in one of
my upper division engineering graduate classes
this semester discussing current events, and it’s
fine under one condition: that the professor gets
off the podium and comes down and joins the
class and makes it a true discussion group, and
that grade book is as far away from his mind as
possible.

But in a beginning English class or a begin¬
ning history class or anything—I saw this hap¬
pen quite a few times when I was a freshman—
the teacher will use the podium to his advantage.
He would get up there and preach on current
events and put his opinions over, instead of stall¬
ing discussion of current events. If anybody dared
to argue, he was immediately squelched. (I did
tty to argue in one political science course.) When
you’re out in the class and the guy’s on the po¬
dium, there’s not much you can do unless you
start getting into a yelling contest.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Some teachers will use the grade book as also
a kind of a lever, and I think this violates tremen¬
dously the academic freedom of the students. And
it’s just an advantage the faculty would be taking
unfairly. But if they make it a fair, open discus¬
sion that has nothing to do with the class, and it’s
completely voluntary, this is perhaps one of the
best things that can be done in a class. If any¬
body doesn’t like it, they can leave. If anybody
wants to participate, they can and they won’t be
penalized—everybody will be listened to, and
nobody will shout them down from a position of
authority.

Like I say. I’ve done this in engineering
classes, and I think I get more out of those classes
than I do sometimes out of, you know, working
on equations and engineering problems, because
with a minimum of help in most classes, you can
get it on your own. I think a lot of education is
not just out of the book.

Do you think that students and faculty (or, I should
say “and/orfaculty”) can be effective politically?
Or should they attempt to be politically effective?

I think that students and faculty are a seg¬
ment of the population, probably one of the most
intelligent segments of the population, and cer¬
tainly one of the most interested because they’re
not in a rut. So, I think definitely they should be
kind of a watch-word by the politicians. How the
people in the academic community react kind of
foretells sometimes what the rest of the country
will do—there’s a time delay there. I think defi¬
nitely they should be active politically, both in
supporting candidates and also things like peti¬
tions and letters to congressmen, things that show
them our opinions.

In selective cases—not all the time, or it loses
its effect—a demonstration or a rally is fine. The
peace rallies last year held in the Manzanita Bowl
I thought were extremely well done. They didn’t
disturb anybody. Anybody that wanted to go went.
There were a lot of people from ROTC that went.
There were, I think, a lot of people from off cam¬
pus that came by to see what was going on and

listen. It seemed that almost anybody that wanted
to talk could go down there and talk, and I thought
they were very effective. I thought rap sessions
outside the student union and in the student union
were very effective this year. It showed that the
campus is thinking, and if a consensus comes out
of it, it kind of gives politicians something to look
at as far as an opinion. So I definitely think people
on campus should be active politically, but they
shouldn’t step on other people’s rights.

Where do you think the peace movement here is
going?

That, I don’t know. With the raise in the Cali¬
fornia tuition, I think we’re going to have a much
bigger percentage of the student population on
campus being involved with the peace movement.
I think the peace movement will get bigger here
on campus; I think it’s going to get bigger every¬
where. Students are directly affected by the war
in that they’re so darn scared they’re going to
have to go that, of course, they polarize to the
other side. They do anything they can to stay
away, so I think the peace movement’s going to
grow.

I think they’ve had, for the most paid, respon¬
sible leadership this year. I hope they manage to
keep things under control and don’t run wild like
they have in other places and go down there and
start breaking windows down on Virginia Street
and closing the campus. I think this would be a
tragedy. I certainly hope they learn something
from this year’s events: if they are going to tty to
disrupt somebody else’s ceremony, and they’re
given permission to make their point, then once
they make their point, they either leave or they
act like gentlemen. I think a lot of them—or the
leaders—realize this, and some of the leaders
were the ones that were goading it on. But I think
afterwards when they saw the public opinion so
massively against them, that maybe they realize
now that that’s not the right tactic to use. I think
it’ll grow, and I just hope that it’ll grow peace¬
fully.

JAMES BLINK

Do you have any other comments you want to
make about the affairs of the past two or three
weeks here ?

Well, the only comment is this: in summary,
I think that it was well-handled by all sides, and I
think that lessons were learned. And not just the
people directly involved, but almost the entire
student population has learned something from
it. And I hope we profit by it. I’d hate to see the
University of Nevada become a burning institu¬
tion like some of them are.

Kenneth J. Carpenter

May 27, 1970

So, just for the record, if you’ll say your name,
your residence, and what your position is.

Kenneth J. Carpenter; Reno; associate direc¬
tor of the library at the university.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed for the project?

[laughter] Well, I suppose because I helped
start it, and it’s obvious that I have been involved
in doings of the last few weeks on the campus,
including a couple of letters to the Sagebrush.
Maybe that’s where my name was picked up.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to send troops into Cambodia?

Horror and despair, I suppose—fright, anger,
frustration. And it brought me out of the wood¬
work.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on the Uni¬
versity of Nevada, Reno campus?

Well, I think what happened to a number of
people is somewhat what happened to me, per¬
haps not personally as great a change. Well, I had
withdrawn from activities out of a sort of tired¬
ness, I guess, and resigned from committees and
quit writing letters to editors and spent my time
home, in my office with my camera. Somehow
or other, this sort of made me angry and unhappy
again with the world, to the extent that it made
me want to do something.

I think that for many of the students and other
people, maybe the same sort of thing had hap¬
pened. I know I had talked to several of my friends
earlier, and many of them felt somewhat the same
way I had: we’ve been sort of alone in our activ¬
ity. Some of us, I suppose, hoped that something
was going to happen. After all, Nixon’s act of
withdrawal program had quieted things some¬
what. But this dramatic-seeming change in policy
in southeast Asia and the happenings at Kent State
University kind of brought people not only to¬
gether—but they wanted to do something, and
they all got together and did something! [laugh¬
ter] Actually, I haven’t seen such an immediate
change in people’s attitude. It happened so
quickly, as it did in that week.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

What was your reaction to the events in the other-
parts of the country that were related to the Cam¬
bodian decision ?

Well, I think my attitude is one that many,
many people have. There seems to be a differ¬
ence in the students’ reaction, although violence
obviously has occurred. Many of the demonstra¬
tions have ended in violence and burning of build¬
ings. Nevertheless, there seems to be a difference
in attitude that’s almost become a cliche now:
that the students work within the system. It
brought them together. I was impressed by the
passion, but also the responsible attitude of most
of the students on campus—in fact, all the stu¬
dents that I talked to. They didn’t want any vio¬
lent confrontations. They weren’t going out to
burn buildings, but they wanted to make their
voice heard, and they did.

I am also, however, somewhat frightened by
the reaction to protests of the last few weeks, the
kind of reaction of the right. I forget now the
nights, but I think on the television, one of the
things that really frightened me the most was the
construction workers’ demonstration attack on
students in New York. This is obviously an orga¬
nized counter-reaction. That really frightened me.
Also, of course, there were actions here locally:
the so-called “cowboy” element was obviously
organized; the ACAC committee is being orga¬
nized downtown; and the obvious people who are
not only condoning this kind of organized
counter-reaction but are stimulating it; Slattery’s
really terribly irresponsible TV appearance dur¬
ing this; Mr. Raggio and others. The statements
put out by the ACAC committee say, “There are
only a small group of people up on the campus
who are causing trouble, and if the university

KENNETH J. CARPENTER

can’t handle them, there’s a small group of people
downtown who can.” This kind of an attitude
seems stronger now than it has been in the past,
and frankly, it frightens me somewhat.

I remember some of these activities in the
past, and during the 1930s in San Joaquin Valley
and, of course, the McCarthy period. But even
now, it might be worse. I mean, potential for se¬
rious trouble exists. It might not nationally, but it
certainly can exist and hurt locally, especially in
a smaller community like this; I think the only
thing that’s saving us is this kind of thing. Well,
like Slattery remarked, it’s because we’re still not
a large urban area. I think if this had been a town
of 250,000 and a university community of ten to
fifteen thousand students, there could have been
serious trouble, partly caused by this sort of an
attitude. (I’ve forgotten the question.)

It had to do with the events in the other parts of
the country that were in response to the Cambo¬
dia decision. But I think that you answered it very
well. Regarding the Governor’s Day activities
here on the university campus, what did you think
of the arrangements made for the observances?

For the observances? You mean the
Governor’s Day itself, not the counter-Govemor’s
Day observances.

No, no. The Governor’s Day observances.

Well, I’ve thought of this quite a bit and of
the events of that week, and one of the things
that one does is always try to go back and lay
blame for what happened. You remember the false
cancellation of Governor’s Day. I wish that that
had been a valid one. I think that considering the
mood of the country and the campus in that week,
to hold a military observance on a campus was
foolish. I can’t think of anything that could have
been more provocative than that. I think we got
off damn lucky. Again, if we had been in a larger
university and in a more urban area and had such
an observance on campus that week, there would
have been a lot more trouble than we had. Can
you think if there had been such a thing in the

middle of the Berkeley campus that week, what
would have happened?

I think it was just bad judgment on whoever’s
part it was—probably the president. I think it
should have been canceled. Now, that there would
have been some other kind of demonstration on
campus seemed to be obvious: everybody just
wanting to do something. But this was just ask¬
ing for it, it seemed to me. And again, I think we
got off lucky. I think that the people who started
the counter-demonstration against Governor’s
Day were just badly organized. You know, if it
had been well-organized, even a little bit better
organized with plans for what they were going to
do and had marshals, I think it would have gone
on very well.

I myself marched in the parade, but my un¬
derstanding was that we were going to go up and
march around the oval once and then go away.
And I think this would have been perfectly proper.
It would have made our demonstration. There
were three or four times as many people in the
parade as there were in the stands, and there
would have been TV cameras, and they would
have made their statement. But at the meeting
down in the bowl beforehand, it was obvious that
there was no organization. People were asking
each other, even at the mike, as I remember, what
they were going to do. And they didn’t determine
what they were going to do; someone said, “Let’s
go,” and everybody went. I have objected pub¬
licly against the catcalls, the booing, the interfer¬
ence afterward. I think that what happened there
destroyed 95 percent of the efficacy of the origi¬
nal protest, and I regret the waste of time and the
effort. And it was just badly done, but again, I
think we got off lucky. It was bad, but, oh, it could
have been so much worse, [laughter]

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various people involved here—the ROTC,
the demonstrators, the university administra¬
tion—to the conflict that developed here in the
demonstration?

You mean at the time of the demonstration
itself?

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Yes.

Well, one thing. I’ve already expressed my
regret and some anger at what happened—the cat¬
calling and the interference with the cadets and
whatever happened. I wasn’t there; I had left, by
the way, before that happened, so I had no per¬
sonal knowledge of what happened. I think that
the ROTC people, the students and the police
reacted magnificently well with restraint and pa¬
tience. And I have several times complimented
personally Bob Malone and Colonel Hill. I think
they did just exactly what they should have done.

Well, given that the event happened, I think
everybody acted quite rationally and reasonably
following that. I can’t even find it in my heart to
really severely criticize the action of the Board
of Regents in Elko. I think they handled it rather
badly in some respects, but given the pressures
that were placed upon them, and given the kind
of people they are, living in the exceedingly con¬
servative community which they do, I think they
were forced to make some kind of response—
and I think properly so. I have some doubts about
picking out two people and doing it publicly, but
except for that, why, I think people have acted
quite reasonably. Again, I mentioned several
times to a number of people, we got off very, very
lucky.

I consider what happened—in terms of the
bombing of Hartman Hall and the Hobbit Hole—
the action of individuals and not a group. Of
course, no one knows what happened, but those
are the two other incidents, but just those falling
between a different state itself. I certainly have
no complaints about what the people in the uni¬
versity have done, but this is again, apart from
the two bombings, if those indeed were univer¬
sity people. I’ve already expressed criticism of
some of the town reaction.

Well, the next question is about your reaction to
the violence that ensued—the bombing. Weil, it
would seem to be obvious what one’s reaction to
this is. [laughter]

I don’t think I even have to express it. I talked
to some of the student leaders—Dan Teglia and
so forth—after it, and I'm convinced that the
bombing of Hartman Hall didn’t come from at
least the group of students that I have been talk¬
ing to. I haven’t the slightest idea who did it, and
no one else has. I’m really much more concerned
about the bombing of the Hobbit Hole that came
six or seven hours after.

If you’ll remember Mr. Slattery’s appearance
on television saying that those Sundowners ought
to get together and run those left-wing radicals
off the campus—when you analyze that state¬
ment, what does “run off’ mean? It certainly
doesn’t mean to go up and ask them politely to
leave or to institute judicial proceedings against
them. It means run them off; it means going up
there and beating them in the head and throwing
them in the river.

I don’t know whether there’s any direct cause
and effect here, and I’m no attorney, but I would
say, just as an example: if the person or persons
who did throw that fire bomb at the Hobbit Hole
were found, and they happened to be, say,
Sundowners, and were found guilty, I would think
they’d actually file criminal charges against Mr.
Slattery for an accessory of attempted murder.
I’m serious about that; I think it was terrible.
Again, I'm more worried about that one than I
was the first one. I’m appalled by both of them,
but more appalled about the second one, espe¬
cially when everybody who knows anything about
the Hobbit Hole knew that there were people in
that building. Again, we got off lucky. Awfully
lucky.

What category of participant—the students, fac¬
ulty, or outsiders—do you feel was most effective
in fomenting the violence?

I haven’t the slightest idea, because I wasn’t
there in the stands. I had made the circle and fallen
out and watched the circle go around again. And
as the people stalled to go in the stands, I returned
to the library.

KENNETH J. CARPENTER

Do you think that outsiders were important in
fomenting the violence here?

I haven’t the slightest idea, from my own
knowledge, I don’t.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence or cooling off the situ¬
ation that developed from the bombing?

I think it was probably the concerted effort
of a number of students and some faculty people
and the people at the Center—John Dodson and
John Marschall. I know that some of us had sev¬
eral meetings a day, most of them informal. And
I know I went around campus, dropped in, talked
to people, just to be around and to find out what
was happening.

As an example, following the Governor’s Day
fiasco, a number of us met over in the Center.
This was actually called by Jim Hulse, who
wanted to reactivate the old Northern Nevada
Peace Group. There were a large number of
people there, both students and faculty. Well, his
effort was aborted, because people started talk¬
ing about what they could do now. There were a
number of suggestions, and as out of large and
vociferous meeting—why, no one knows really
who suggested it—but the idea of some obser¬
vance on Friday for the Kent State students was
mentioned. Then it was sort of decided that that’s
what was going to be done, and so several of us
were appointed as a committee to arrange this.

I don’t remember who all was involved—Bob
Harvey and myself. Again, this was very infor¬
mal. When we met to do this, I think it was at my
suggestion that this should be strictly a memorial
service, because I was rather scared of a large
group brought together and lots of wild rhetoric
thrown around. If there are lots of people together
and they’ve been shouting and yelling at each
other for a while and then things are ended, one
of the difficulties in an atmosphere like that is
that all the passions that are aroused need some
kind of an outlet. Where are people going to go
and what are they going to do?

So, we decided to have a very simple, short,
strictly memorial service with no political ha¬
rangues allowed. Now, I must admit that the very
fact of having a memorial service on Friday for
the Kent State students in itself was political ac¬
tivity; this I will grant, [laughter] And we did it
that way. Everybody went along with me on this,
and as you know, we had a very simple, short,
strictly memorial service.

I asked Dan to have Marschall to protect the
microphone, because I wanted to make sure that
after the service someone didn’t come up and start
haranguing the crowd with wild rhetoric on the
microphone. And this is the way it happened. As
a result, it was a little ticklish at the end of the
service. The organized group that came over, I
suppose, from the School of Agriculture, wanted
to use the microphone to tell their side of it. They
pointed out there was no “their” side (of course,
this isn’t quite true, because, again, it was a po¬
litical act). Then people stood around for a while,
not quite knowing what to do, but the mood had
been set, and they quietly dispersed. I think that
that, as an example, helped maintain control. And
there were other things. Ben Hazard was around
in groups, and I heard him at a couple of them.
Just this sort of cooling it by a number of stu¬
dents and faculty, I think, helped a great deal.

Also, I must say that President Miller’s state¬
ment that was printed in the Sagebrush helped a
great deal. If that hadn’t come out that morning, I
think there could have been some trouble, because
the students and a lot of the faculty said they
hadn’t heard anything out of the president’s of¬
fice, and presidents and chancellors from all over
the country have been making statements. I know
that I had called Bob Harvey the night before,
and I was worried about it, so we decided to go
to the president that morning. Now, the chronol¬
ogy of these days is a little unclear. (I was going
to get this all straight before I came in here; I
didn’t have time.) So, we went down to his office
at 8:00 that morning, and he saw us, and we ex¬
pressed our concern that there should be some
statement from his office, and it had already been
made that morning, [laughter]

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

That helped a great deal. The fact that an extra
issue of the Sagebrush came out with it promi¬
nently displayed on the front page was a great
factor, and it was a very good statement. (Again,
I’ve lost track of the question.)

You’ve answered it very well. How do you think
events on campus affect the university’s image
with outsiders?

Well, in the first place, I don’t like the word
“image.”

No, it’s a bad word. Shall I say “public aspect”
or.. .?

[laughter] I wonder what happened to the
good old-fashioned word of “reputations.” Well,
I don’t know. The reputation of the university in
the community is always a mixed one. In my view,
what the town and gown thinks about the univer¬
sity is really only what I get from the newspapers
and television. Like most of us within the uni¬
versity community, our social life is built around
and with other university people. I really know
very few people in town. So, you know, what I
say comes from newspapers, editorials in the
Nevada State Journal and the Reno Evening Ga¬
zette.

Oh, by the way, back to the previous ques¬
tion about controlling: I think the university owes
a debt of gratitude to the Gazette —not to KOLO
or to journalism, certainly, but certainly to the
Gazette and to George Frank. I’ve watched their
stories with a great deal of care, and their bal¬
anced reporting and balanced editorials are atti¬
tudes that I think is another time we got off lucky,
just lucky.

One can only hope that it’s a tempest in a
teapot. Our problem is it’s our teapot. We’ll prob¬
ably live through it all right. We’re in finals week
now, and probably nothing will happen during
the summer. Our constituency in the summer is
quite different than it is in the fall. I do think,
however, that a number of people—primarily fac¬
ulty—could get together during the summer and

organize themselves so that we will know what
to do next fall and not wait until the event.

I think some plans should be made. I’m not
talking about policy plans; I’m talking about the
kinds of things we were doing during those two
weeks. And I don’t mean just us pointy-headed
intellectuals: I'm talking about very, very con¬
servative people who are also concerned about
the university. We should be ready to talk to
people. For instance, I think that people should
talk to the conservative people downtown who
have their back hairs up—the ACAC committee.

It’d be silly for me to go down and talk to
them, but I think that some people could: people
who have been around for a long time, who are
very conservative, who feel the same way they
do about things, but who have the interest of the
university qua university, at heart, regardless of
political affiliation. Those are the people that
should be talking to Raggio, Slattery (if one could
talk to Slattery), and Mr. Bullis. They should be
the ones, and they have been.

Sam Basta and I are probably on the oppo¬
site ends of the political spectrum, and I have
severe criticisms of Sam, but as a person he’s well-
liked, and regardless of some mistakes that he’s
made, he knows how to talk to people in the com¬
munity. He’s highly regarded. And I know he’s
done it; I saw him the other day, and he has been
around. This could help a lot. They’re the people
that should be going down and talking to—shall
I say?—our opponents in the community. And
some of them have been doing it, but I think that
they need to get organized.

1447/, the next question has to do with what func¬
tion the university should have in focusing pub¬
lic opinion, and I think you ’ve covered this quite
well.

Well, in focusing public opinion or in improv¬
ing our image, this is a kind of a lost cause, in a
way. The conflict between town and gown has
been going on for centuries. After all, the stu¬
dents ran one of the early French kings clear out
of Paris. He had to go back and beg to get back

KENNETH J. CARPENTER

in. This has been going on for centuries, and it
always will. It’s the degree of it that I’m con¬
cerned about. Some of it we just can’t do any¬
thing about, that’s all. [laughter]

[laughter] Do you feel that issues of academic
freedom are involved in participating in demon¬
stration ?

Well, if you mean, are they involved, obvi¬
ously they are involved since, for instance, my
walking in a protest parade is a public expres¬
sion of my attitude towards something, regard¬
less of what it is. I think like any other statement
that is made by a faculty member, it has to be
within certain bounds. I think the AAUP code of
conduct specifies these fairly well, as does the
university code. I think that like all citizens, we
have the right to speak our mind.

I’m not a teacher, but I am a faculty member,
and being a faculty member I have a responsibil¬
ity. In a sense, I am a teacher. I buy books for the
library, and the primary function is teaching. So
within those restrictions, one must live; one must
accept the responsibilities as well as the freedom.
Now, as I say, I think that my and other people’s
participation in that march followed well within
the scope of responsible action. Going beyond
that, obviously, they can be concerned and maybe
restricted, [laughter] It’s a question of degree: how
far you’re going to go. I would go on, but I don’t
want to make any statements about specific
charges against specific people at this time. The
code spells it out very well.

How do you think that students or faculty can be
effective politically? Or should they attempt to
influence governmental decision?

Well, I have a number [laughter] of good
things to say about that. Obviously they should
try to influence political decisions, because
they’re citizens of the United States. When you
say faculty or students, the assumption is that
that’s an organized group, and in this case, for
political puipose. One of the difficulties in my

activities within the campus community in the
last few years is bumping up against this concept
of a faculty. In a sense, there is no faculty, in the
sense of an organized or even unorganized group
of people who think the same way about things.
There arc a bunch of people up here of various
degrees of education with a multiplicity of atti¬
tudes, every color of the political spectrum, and
they will go their own ways. And the same is true
of students.

The people from the outside think of the uni¬
versity as a coherent, recognizable, homogenous
community. It is not, anymore than “downtown”
is. It just happens that we are all here at the Uni¬
versity of Nevada, Reno. We spend “X” number
of hours per day within the certain restricted geo¬
graphical limit—the campus. We’re involved in
what some people think is the same thing—teach¬
ing, research, and working (again, there is as much
difference in people’s work, in a sense, as all the
people working in the clubs or in construction
work).

So, in that sense, it’s hard to answer your
question, but in a sense it is a good question, be¬
cause obviously students and faculty are orga¬
nizing around the country for specific political
puiposes. And I think this is a perfectly valid ac¬
tivity. If it’s not, we certainly have to cut off thou¬
sands of years of our history, because we’ve al¬
ways been doing it, and you can’t stop it. You
may as well live with reality.

I’m very interested in this new so-called
“working within the system” movement that’s
been going on around the country. I think that
certainly in this relatively small community, it
could be quite effective if it were done properly.
You saw probably in the paper where the students
at San Jose State had made the supreme sacrifice
of getting their hair cut so they could go knock
on doorbells. This is great!

To a certain extent, this is the sort of thing
I’ve already made a suggestion to the students
that they organize themselves to go and talk to
particular people, not fighting it out through the
headlines anymore. Oh, you still can. I think dem¬
onstrations have their puipose. They’re a show

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

of force, but students need to pinpoint their tar¬
gets and try to convince them.

There’s another interesting thing, Mary Ellen,
that’s happened on this campus; it’s happened to
others: the people who violently object to another
person’s political attitudes (and now let’s use
some bad words like “cowboy” and “hippie”).
They’ve been shouting and screaming at each
other at a distance, but they’ve gotten together in
certain closed rooms lately and talked to each
other, and I’ve heard “Well, gee—he’s a human
being.”

Well, they haven’t convinced each other. One
is still going to vote for Nixon, and one is still
going to vote for whoever is going to be the
Democratic nominee the next time. One still
wants to fight in Cambodia, and another one still
wants to get out today. But what has happened is
that they’ve gained a certain degree of respect
for each other as individuals, and I think this is
what’s important.

When people stand at a distance and shout at
each other, it’s not going to help because you’re
not going to convince each other. But at least if
you can gain some kind of respect for each other
as human beings, this is a great step forward, and
this is why I like the idea of these small groups
talking together. You can’t do it in big, large rooms
with a couple of hundred people; you can’t do it
on television; you can’t do it through the head¬
lines; and you can’t do it through demonstration.

When the kind of thing I’m talking about
happens, I think we gain something. It’s happen¬
ing all over the country, if you’ve been reading
your newspapers. And this sort of thing, for in¬
stance, would help in this community. Another
one is for them to just bring good, old-fashioned
political pressure to bear on votes. For instance,
why don’t some of us get together and get the
person they want for the Board of Regents?
There’s a position open coming up in November.
Find somebody. Find someone who’s willing to
run, and then get out and get him elected. Go ring
doorbells. Go get money for a campaign. And do
the same thing all the way through the political
structure of the state of Nevada. And the possi¬

bility for this, I think, is great, and I see no rea¬
son for not doing it.

I remember years ago in Berkeley we did that.
There was great conflict between town and
gown—I’m talking about in the middle 1950s—
and we were having lots of trouble with the city
fathers, and so we decided, “Well, let’s elect one
of ours,” and we did. It was relatively simple. At
least until recent years, we had a good relation¬
ship, you see, because we had one good univer¬
sity person on the city council. It could happen
here, but I’m not so sure. This is the most
unorganizable community I think I’ve ever been
in! [laughter]

Where do you think the peace movement is headed
here now?

Well, it all depends on what happens in
Indochina in the next few months. If Nixon is
right—and, of course, to most of the old, tired
liberals, it seems impossible that he is—but
granted the possibility that he is right, and if next
fall shows a significant change in the war in
Indochina, then we’ll have to find something else,
[laughter]

This is what happened a few months ago,
Mary Ellen. It quieted down because of the with¬
drawal program and so forth. We weren’t out, but
it looked somewhat hopeful, and the peace move¬
ment really went down. And that’s what will hap¬
pen here. If it continues on, if we get more and
more involved, I think the whole country’s in for
really serious trouble—politically, socially, and
economically. I think it’s obvious. I think there’s
a real crisis point, and he better be right. Oh, you
better be right! [laughter]

Do you have other commen ts you ’cl like to make ?

No, I don’t think anything that I haven’t al¬
ready said. Again, to a certain extent, the local
affair has been a tempest in a teapot—our tea¬
pot—and we got off lucky. I hope we’ve learned
something from it. I hope the administration has
learned something from it of anticipating the pos-

KENNETH J. CARPENTER

sibility of trouble and doing something definite
to avoid it or to calm them down. This is one
thing that one must recognize as a technique: that
you don’t stop the student. If they’re all fussed
up about something, you don’t stop it. You divert
or calm them down, but you don’t stop.

This is one of Ben Hazard’s techniques dur¬
ing the last few weeks. In some of the conversa¬
tions that I’ve heal'd with students, if I took what
he said verbatim and transcribed them and gave
them to somebody, he would sound like the most
revolutionary person that you ever heard: the lan¬
guage he uses, and the things that he says to do.
But within that small group, here’s what he’s do¬
ing: he talks and he talks and he talks, and when
he’s through, those kids are going off in a tan¬
gential direction in a more constructive way, and
they’re calmed down. But don’t ever tty to stop
them—that’s ridiculous.

That’s the trouble with confrontation. They
bring in a phalanx of policemen or national guard
and stop them. You don’t do that. It’s ridiculous.
Always leave your opponent a graceful way out.
Never box anybody in. Unconditional surrender
is the most dangerous threat known to man. Al¬
ways leave somebody a way out. If you don’t,
the only thing to do is to kill each other, [laugh¬
ter]

Americo Chiarito

June 4, 1970

Just to start off, would you like to give your name
and what you consider your hometown and your
position on campus?

My name is Americo Chiarito, and Reno is
my home at the present, as much as anything is.
And I’m a catalog librarian at the main library at
the university in Reno.

And why do you think you were chosen to be in-
terviewed?

Well, I suppose possibly because I partici¬
pated in the various public expressions and dis¬
sent since I've been in the university, and possi¬
bly because a letter of mine appeared in the Sage¬
brush shortly after Governor’s Day relating to
what happened on that day.

Well, what was your personal reaction to Presi¬
dent Nixon's decision to move troops into Cam¬
bodia ?

Well, I was appalled and horrified that events
took this course. Of course, Mr. Nixon promised

during his campaign for election that he would
end the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam has
not been ended, and the announcement that it was
going to be extended into another helpless coun¬
try should mean the murder of many more help¬
less people and their dislocation, and so on, all
of the terrible things that happen in war. It was
very sad news for me.

Yes. And do you think that this had some relation
to what happened next on campus here? Or in
what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to the things that happened next?

Well, in the five years that I’ve been here, I
think there’s been a growing disaffection with the
military course throughout the country, and this
has even affected the campus in Reno. There’s a
feeling that ROTC hasn’t had much of a place in
the university academic life. I think the Cambo¬
dia announcement helped set off the reaction that
occurred.

Yes. What was your reaction to events in other
parts of the country related to the Cambodia de¬
cision, such as Kent State and Jackson, Missis¬
sippi?

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, it’s all part of the same picture, as far
as I'm concerned. Again, the use of the word “hor¬
ror” here .... In fact, the United States has be¬
come so accustomed to the use of violence in its
official life, while it keeps denouncing students
who resort to violence. There is so much use of
violence in this country. Of course, the whole
Vietnam War and this Cambodian extension is
further use of violence to gain what nationally
we feel is right for the country. But this is, I think,
a terrible hypocrisy and terribly confusing to
young people who are looking for some guidance
on how to conduct their lives.

Yes. Well, regarding Governor’s Day activities at
the University of Nevada, Reno, what did you
think of the arrangements for the ceremony, for
the observances?

You mean the official arrangements for the
university, the usual conducting of those obser¬
vances?

Yes.

Well, here, too, it’s so closely tied to the
ROTC picture. I think there’s been a growing
concern and questioning of the use of Governor’s
Day and total dedication to the military on this
campus. And there’s been a feeling that this is
not what Governor’s Day ought to mean, certainly
not entirely. Well, there are many ways of look¬
ing at it. I don’t know if this is part of this ques¬
tion or not.

It doesn’t matter. It’s your tape.

I know. I think university land is public land,
and, of course, there are academic functions on
it, which have to be honored—and they should
not be interrupted. But I don’t think that every
function on it is academic in the strict sense of
the term. When we had the visit by the governor,
especially in such a narrowly confined area as
the ROTC (which has very, very little academic

significance), the event of his visit is hardly at all
a matter of honoring the usual academic codes.

And I think he carries with him all of his po¬
litical significance, especially in a public visit to
a public place, which means that he is in a posi¬
tion to be communicated with by his constitu¬
ency, and sometimes that public exchange of opin¬
ion gets kind of rough. And it’s not always as
polite as in the classroom. And I think this is one
of the meanings of what happened on Governor’s
Day.

What was your reaction to the demonstrations?
Did you feel it was necessary to participate in
any way?

Well, I participated rather fully. Of course,
again, the accumulation of frustration over the
years was rather great in that I, at least, had to
make my own feelings of dissatisfaction known,
especially when I felt that the gloss and the ve¬
neer of this occasion was to give assent to the
Cambodia invasion and the Vietnam War, and to
assure everyone that everything was being done
properly.

Well, in the first place, I would like to be able
to relate to Mr. Laxalt or whoever is in public
office on a one-to-one basis, but we can’t do that
because of psychological distances and clinical
distances. And so I think it’s not surprising that
sometimes communication on that level is grosser.

Yes.

I don’t mean obscene. I just mean that like in
a painting, the strokes have to be a little broader,
perhaps, to communicate over the distances than
it would be permissible if you were simply speak¬
ing to someone in a classroom or in an ordinary
conversation.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstrations?

Well, I don’t know how you’re using the word
“effective.”

AMERICO CHIARITO

I find it hard to put it, too. What stands out as
being important as far as what the demonstra¬
tors did?

Well, it’s hai'd to tell, of course, at any time
when you’re talking to someone, whether you
have ever communicated or not. And sometimes,
communication doesn’t take effect for ten or fif¬
teen years, even in personal relationship.

I thought one of the things that happened that
was rather interesting was the visual and some¬
times the oral contrast between the death and life:
on one hand, the ROTC was representing this
great emphasis we have in this country on death
and murder and killing and force and violence;
and on the other, some of the demonstrators
seemed to be enjoying themselves, enjoying the
sunshine and were stripped to the waist and were
able to enjoy their bodies and all the meaning of
joy, and relating to one another as people instead
of as objects to be moved around on the battle¬
field or on a marching field.

And some of them had a sort of a spontane¬
ous theater, which I thought was rather nice. And
whether these things will have an effect or not,
we certainly can’t tell. What we can do, I think
this kind of communication has to be made: that
life is important, and the human being and the
expressions of joy and relating to other human
beings are important. It has to be done if we’re
not going to succumb entirely to death and mili¬
tarism.

What do you think should have been a reaction
of let’s say, the university administration to this
conflict that developed on the field? Was their
reaction what you expected or what you would
like to have it, or would you feel it should be dif¬
ferent?

Well, I thought it was helpful in the circum¬
stances that the ROTC didn’t overreact to the
demonstrators. It would have been very bad to
have had violence erupt. As far as President Miller
was concerned. I’m a little disturbed that a man

of his standing, a man of his interest in educa¬
tion, and a person whom I admire, would partici¬
pate in a thing of this sort. Not long before the
state-of-the-university message, he had ques¬
tioned whether violence had a place on the cam¬
pus and certain other ways of expressing rela¬
tionships that did not have a place on the cam¬
pus. And I find it a little contradictory that he
would take part in what is really an ROTC dem¬
onstration and a political demonstration.

Yes. Well, then what was your reaction to the vio¬
lence that followed this: the bombings of the
ROTC building first, and then Hobbit Hole?

Well, I think that’s deplorable—of course, not
the way to settle anything. I don’t know. Again,
what it really means, since we don’t know who
did it, it’s hard to tell whether it was a student or
some dissatisfied person in town who was trying
to set things off. We don’t know. I don’t know
whether we ever will know.

Yes. That just naturally leads into this next ques¬
tion: what category of participant, whether it be
student or faculty or outsider, do you feel was the
most effective in fomenting the violence that did
erupt? You touched on it briefly. You don’t know
who it is. Of course, none of us know, but do you
have any feelings about who got these violent feel¬
ings started?

Well, I don’t know. Certainly, I don’t know
where this started. I don’t know really what it
means in the picture since, again, we don’t know
who did it. It’s very hard to interpret the results,
but I wouldn’t be too surprised if there were stu¬
dents involved on campus.

But again, I find it difficult to understand the
lack of understanding about this sort of thing.
How can we justify all the violence going on na¬
tionally and internationally at our behest and then
worry so much about the bombing of a little build¬
ing on a campus somewhere? We’re spending
billions of dollars, not only theoretically, for so-

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

called “future defense,” but at this very moment,
we’re destroying villages and people and fields,
agriculture, everything, in nations which are not
our enemies.

Yes. What actions do you feel were most effective
in preventing more violence or cooling off the
situation after these bombings?

Well, again, I think President Miller behaved
admirably here in urging people to keep their
heads and not to overreact to the bombings—and
to try to talk things out.

Are you referring, then, to the campus conversa¬
tions or rap sessions, or whatever they called
them ?

Yes.

What do you think about events on campus, and
how do they affect the university’s image with
outsiders?

Well, I don’t know what this means. What
does the university’s image mean? That the uni¬
versity is supposed to be a place where a lot of
thinking goes on, and it may be disturbing to
people off campus who don’t want to be disturbed
in their daily routine of their lives and who don’t
want to know that there arc other ways of doing
things and thinking about things. So if the image
is to be one of nothing happening, it naturally is
going to be disturbing. I don’t know how to an¬
swer that.

Yes. Well, then maybe this one will work: what
function should the university have in focusing
public opinion?

Focusing public opinion?

Well, on problems such as war.

I think the university ought to play a very
important central part in these problems. Again,

if it’s going to be a place where research takes
place, where people think very hard . . . basically
about the problems and their causes. In our soci¬
ety, simply because of the nature of things, as we
go along, we tend to forget the origin of situa¬
tions. That’s a very bad sentence, [laughter]

Don’t worry about it. Say it over if you want to.
[laughter]

Well, as we go along, we do forget the ori¬
gins of our situations, and certain traditions be¬
come encrusted on what we do, and so on and so
on. And when we go back to the bases of the prob¬
lems, we sometimes have to get rid of all the
meaningless things that have attached themselves
to the central core of the situation.

Yes, yes. Do you feel that the issues of academic
freedom are involved in participation in demon¬
strations?

Well, I think it’s broader than academic free¬
dom, if academic freedom means the freedom to
pursue in research or classroom situation the
course of a discussion or an idea to its logical
conclusion. What happens in a demonstration or
participation of some sort of civic activity, isn’t
it the whole question of being a citizen in de¬
mocracy to the fullest, of which academic free¬
dom is only a part?

Yes, yes. How can faculty people be effective po¬
litically? Should they attempt to influence politi¬
cal or government policies?

Well, I believe that the classroom ought not
to be used as an instrument of propaganda or as a
place of propagandizing, which is a position not
easy to keep. Because, on the other hand, I don’t
believe that a person ought to be a machine ei¬
ther. A professor is bound to be a human being
and ought to be a human being and react to soci¬
ety around him, which means that in a classroom,
he should present all sides of a problem. Perhaps
his humanity will also come out, and he’s bound

AMERICO CHIARITO

to reflect a certain bias in his presentation of ideas.
I've forgotten what the original question is.
[laughter]

Well, how can a faculty person be effective po¬
litically?

Well, outside of the classroom, of course, he
can participate in whatever movements and what¬
ever social groups and political groups he wants
to or he feels that he can be effective in, whether
an organized political party or peace movement.

The choice should be his.

Whatever he wants. Yes.

Yes. You mentioned the peace movement. Where
is the peace movement in this area headed? Do
you know?

In this area? I don’t know. I don’t know.

Yes. Are there any other comments that you ’cl like
to make?

Well, in the back of my mind is the use of
that word “outsiders” on the campus, which al¬
ways has a negative connotation. It’s a bad thing
to have an outsider on the campus, but is Gover¬
nor Laxalt an outsider on the campus when he
comes here?

Yes.

[laughter] Oh, well, it was thrown in because so
many people seem to need that word to give ex¬
pression to some ideas they had.

Well, yes. My reaction to it is broader than
this. I mean, it’s used nationally to indicate that
there’s someone from off the campus who is fo¬
menting all this dissent and revolution among the
kids. But this is the nature of ideas. It could be
someone on the campus as well who might have
the very same ideas. I mean, if this theoretical
person off campus were to come on campus and
express the same ideas, I don’t know what differ¬
ence it makes where the idea comes from. It’s the
validity of the idea itself that matters.

Why is he not an outsider, and why is some¬
one else from downtown Reno or Carson City an
outsider when he comes on the campus to speak
or to make his appearance?

I think the question probably stemmed from the
usual suspicion, “Oh, it’s not our kids who are
doing this. It must be some outsiders. ”

Oh, yes. Fear of the infiltration of an idea or
something—a foreign state like California.

William G. Copren

May 29, 1970

What is your major and class?

History and graduate student.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

[laughter] Well, at first I was very suspicious
of it, feeling that there was some ulterior motive
in trying to gain evidence against persons who
might have been involved in the so-called dis¬
turbances. Right now. I'm not quite sure why I
am being interviewed.

What was your reaction when President Nixon
said that he was going to send troops into Cam¬
bodia ?

Well, I just felt that it was unconstitutional,
that it was immoral. It was just wrong to cross
international lines, international boundaries, and
it was imitative of Russia going into Czechoslo¬
vakia and then pacifying a country and then pull¬
ing their troops out and saying .... There’s just
absolutely no reason for it or justification for
something that’s immoral and wrong.

And so you feel it was more immoral and in what
way unconstitutional?

Well, it’s almost unprecedented in this man¬
ner to invade a neutral country simply at the de¬
sire of the president in the military clique. As a
history major, I can only think of one other time
it was done, and it wasn’t quite the same thing.
And that would be the Russian situation, the Si¬
berian situation, just after World War I, when
American troops were sent in to keep an eye on
Japanese troops. That is the only instance in
American history that I know of when it was done
specifically at the president’s request.

The constitution gives the legislative branch
the choice in acting, as far as stalling wars. When
they give them the power to declare war, sup¬
posedly, the legislative branch should be con¬
sulted. This was very similar to just simply a dic¬
tatorial policy of the man who just decided that
he could use the military as a means, regardless
of international law, to just do anything.

OK. In what way do you think that the Cambo¬
dia decision was related to what happened next
on the University of Nevada campus?

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, I think it was very important, although
I think it was the Kent State thing that outraged
people more than Cambodia. There was a cer¬
tain antiwar sentiment on the campus and in the
country against what everybody considered to be
an immoral and unethical and illegal war, and a
war not in the national interest and not in
anybody’s interest, except maybe Sears and Roe¬
buck and General Motors and Brown & Root.
Then to agitate and irritate and enlarge and widen
the war just seemed to be insane! That just upset
great numbers of people and outraged any num¬
ber of people on the campus—well, in the whole
country.

But I think it was the Kent State thing that
was more important. When our country reaches
such a low point that it has to kill its own stu¬
dents, well, I can see very little difference be¬
tween this country—this so-called democracy,
based on the people—and any other type of au¬
tocratic government that has to shoot us people.
And students, especially, have been notoriously
ones who get shot by other countries and other
people.

Yes. How about the Cambodia decision and its
effect on the nation as a whole and what hap¬
pened in the nation? Do you feel that it was di¬
rectly the Cambodia decision that caused prob¬
lems to occur?

I don’t think it caused any problems. I think
the invasion of Cambodia was the catalyst that
precipitated the reaction and the great reaction
on the college campuses, which just could not
believe the insanity of this decision and the arbi¬
trariness and the, well, dictatorial, almost, type
of decision that would just use the army and the
military as a personal adjunct of the executive
branch. Now, there are just millions and millions
of problems. And one of the problems is the his¬
torians think it’s a bunch of minor group .... It
isn’t a minor group of a small number of people.
There are all kinds of social and economic prob¬
lems that are just aggravating and intensifying
the dissent in this country, which maybe all re¬
lates at this particular moment to the Vietnam

War and the strain on the economy and on the
moral fabric of the country.

Yes. So it was a combination, perhaps, of things?

Well, yes. I think it’s a combination of social
ills; it’s a combination of the concentration of
the power and the economic control of the coun¬
try into fewer and fewer hands, the militariza¬
tion and brutalization of the country because of
a war, and this whole concentration of power and
depersonalizing the country.

Whether it’s the black problem or the prob¬
lem with the hippies. Just because people look
different, they .... These are all problems that
are just being aggravated and more so, and it was
just a lashing out, that Cambodia was simply a
catalyst that precipitated all the moral outrage at
once.

Yes. Regarding the Governor’s Day’s activities
on the campus, what did you think of the arrange¬
ments for the observances? Were they appropri¬
ate?

No. I mean, to ask people to dissent....
Everybody says, “Well, this country can dissent.”
We all believe in dissent. Even that list last night;
it said, “We all believe in dissent.” Nixon says
we believe in dissent. Well, in the first place, if
you’re going to have dissent, dissent has to do
something that has to be meaningful. You have
to petition Congress. When the abolitionists pe¬
titioned Congress and they put the gag rule and
they tabled the petitions, well, it has to be mean¬
ingful, and you can’t dissent in a vacuum, and
you can’t go out and shout in the wilderness.

They stuck the dissenters off in this little
corner of the campus where they could talk to
the trees. Well, if they sit and talk among them¬
selves, they do nothing but feed each other’s sick¬
ness. If dissent is going to have any effect, it has
to be a confrontation of views. The dissenters
have to confront the conformists—which is not
a derogatory word—the people who go along
with what’s happening. The dissent has to con¬
front those people, or it isn’t dissent. It is just

WILLIAM G. COPREN

screaming and yelling in the wilderness. It means
nothing; it has no value; it isn’t dissent then.

And that’s approximately what happened.
Twenty-five years from now we would have had
the twenty-fifth annual peace rally, because the
dissent doesn’t mean anything if the dissenters
all go down in one paid of the campus, and the
people who agree go in another part. You know,
this was the second annual [rally]. It’s like a
homecoming parade or something, and you go
off and you have one every year. On Governor’s
Day the dissenters go one place, and the ROTC
people go another place, and there’s no confron¬
tation of views. There can be no dialog of any
sort. And so without some type of confrontation,
there is no dissent, essentially.

What about the way that the governor and his
party observed the day? Do you feel that the ar¬
rangements were in keeping with the times?

Well, that was totally absurd on their part. If
they wanted to prevent some type of “distur¬
bance”, they should have just canceled
Governor’s Day, because that was obscene. That
was the greatest obscenity in the world to honor
the military, on a university campus, right after
the military had just killed students on a univer¬
sity campus. That was obscene, and in any num¬
ber of college campuses those types of activi¬
ties, which were held on that same day, were can¬
celed. So this was just simply a tactical error for
the administration to do that if they wanted to
prevent a disturbance. It was an obscenity and,
well, of course, right in line with the brutaliza¬
tion and the depersonalization of the country.
They don’t take into consideration the fact that
these were people killed, not just four students.
So that was just absurd and obscene. It was truly
obscene.

Why do you think they went ahead and held the
observance?

Well, they have some idea that you can’t give
in to force. Of course, there was no force. An¬
other thing is, had they not held it, there would

have been an outcry from the so-called silent
majority, or whoever the masses of the people in
this state are. Well, they aren’t masses. The
people, whoever they arc, would have just been
outraged that this thing should be canceled. They
can cancel classes; they can cancel everything
for some stupid thing like Mackay Day, but they
can’t cancel classes in memoriam for when four
fellow students are killed, because of the outcry
from the very, very vocal and very unsilent ma¬
jority in this state ... or minority. It’s the rich
and the ignorant who do this.

What was your reaction to the demonstrations?

Well, I thought they were relatively calm and
orderly. The dissenters had bad manners, accord¬
ing to what people in the society think are good
manners—etiquette, whatever it is. But because
they refused to sit down and say nothing while
this manifestation of the militarism in this soci¬
ety allowed the military to go through all kinds
of long, drug-out speeches and everything, they
had bad manners. But that was all.

There was no violence. There was no major
disturbance. There were no fistfights, nobody got
hurt, nothing got burned, nothing got broken.
There was just absolutely no violence. At the
same time, they’re killing thousands of people
far away in the Far East. It was just very, very
calm, relatively.

Did you fee I that it was necessary to participate
in the observance or in the demonstration?

Well, I felt it was necessary for me to, be¬
cause I felt that I had an obligation to my coun¬
try to point out that I thought that a wrong had
been committed, that I couldn’t be an American
and believe injustice and equality and all of those
terms that I’ve been taught, which mean noth¬
ing, obviously, unless I could participate in tak¬
ing part in this protest.

What do you feel was the most effective part of
the observance or demonstration ?

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, the most effective thing was when
President Miller told the students that he had
permitted them to come up to the Mackay Sta¬
dium, and now he wanted them to be quiet, and
they told him to shut up and sit down, that they
weren’t taking orders from him anymore. They
have been taking orders from him, essentially, as
he’s been throwing sops to them to be so-called
left, or whatever it is, for years now. They just
quit taking orders from Miller. I thought that was
effective, because it really upset him. I thought
the stopping of the motorcade was very effec¬
tive, because it pointed out to any number of of¬
ficials that the dissent on this campus was a great
deal larger than people had thought it was, and
there was more outrage at what was happening.
So those were, I think, effective.

Just marching around the football field means
just about nothing. I mean, they could allow you
to march forever until the sun got too much and
everybody passed out, and they could care less,
so I don’t think that was very effective. Not let¬
ting Miller speak, shouting him down was effec¬
tive, because it scared him to death.

And when a great number of people wouldn’t
allow the vehicles to move on a sidewalk....
That sidewalk, those vehicles were specifically
forbidden from being there, since the signs say
you can’t go beyond a certain point, and they were
beyond that. I think that was very effective, and
it scared a lot of people to death. Of course, noth¬
ing happened. There was no violence or anything,
but it still scared people, because they noticed
that here were people who were outraged, mor¬
ally outraged and not quiet any longer, and they
were unruly and had bad manners.

Yes. Why do you feel the demonstrators yelled
during the sendees themselves?

Well, because they’ve been yelling in the
wilderness, screaming in the wilderness, and into
a vacuum for so long. Governor’s Day has been
going on; those people have been allowed to say
what they wanted to say now for thirty years (or
however long that Governor’s Day’s thing has
been going on), and the dissenters have been al¬

lowed to say what they wanted to as long as they
didn’t say it to anybody or say it where it counted.
As long as they just talked to each other down in
the Manzanita Bowl, that was fine, because it
didn’t bother anybody and it was quiet and or¬
derly.

So they had to express their views to point
out the obscenity of this, of having a military
demonstration in honor of a governor who had
just passed the Republican platform, which spe¬
cifically condones the unconstitutional, immoral
invasion of a neutral state, Cambodia. Somebody
had to point it out, and you can’t allow those type
of people to do all the talking. Belief in free
speech and everything is fine, but they aren’t al¬
lowing anybody else to talk.

What do you think that the reactions of the vari¬
ous factions on the university should have been
to the demonstrations? Take administration and
the ROTC and the demonstrators themselves,
faculty, if you can look at it from these differen t
angles.

Well, if I would have been an ROTC person,
if I really believed in the military—which I feel
that there are very few in ROTC who do, and a
number of them I know who were just there
against their will—if I would have been them, I
wouldn’t have felt that it was .... I mean, noth¬
ing happened; they weren’t threatened by any¬
body. I probably would have been upset. I’m not
sure how I would have felt.

Had I been the administration, I would have
felt that this was good, because it showed that
there were people who were concerned, who be¬
lieved that there was something to America and
worth saving, who believed that “business as
usual” can’t continue while all of our friends are
being killed in the foreign war. Now, they don’t
think like that. They immediately start talking
about violence which didn’t occur, and their
rhetoric heats up and aggravates everything and
brings a type of oppression by vigilante groups
that call themselves alumni, by newspapers that
tell lies—absolute lies—and editorialize about
things that didn’t happen, who just agitate the

WILLIAM G. COPREN

public and misinform the public to such an ex¬
tent that it causes a reaction to something that
was very minor and very calm in relative terms.

Could you elaborate a little on how you felt the
news media handled the situation and give some
specifics perhaps ?

First place, they underemphasized the num¬
ber of people. They said that there were only 300
people marching—300 dissenters—when actu¬
ally the very minimum would have been 600. And
that’s a very conservative estimate, in my esti¬
mation. That is very conservative to say 600. And
600 out of 6,000 is a fairly good-sized minority
of people. Now, that’s one thing.

Then another thing was in an editorial they
said we tried to take down the American flag.
There was no American flag there, none except
the color guard, and nobody got within a hun¬
dred yards of the color guard. There was no
American flag flying in Mackay Stadium at all,
because the flag standard was broken. And I spe¬
cifically know the flag standard was broken, be¬
cause we tried to raise a peace flag, and the pul¬
leys wouldn’t work. So I know that that was bro¬
ken.

Then they talked about violence. There was
no violence. I don’t know what their definition
of violence is, but my definition is somebody has
to get hurt; there has to have been property de¬
stroyed. I don’t know how they define violence,
but there was absolutely no violence that oc¬
curred. They twisted that around. They made
statements like “communist agitators” and
“commie-inspired propaganda,” oh, “McCarthy-
era propaganda,” and “name-calling,” “mudsling-
ing,” which is just absolutely untrue, an untruth,
because as far as I know, there’s not a single com¬
munist on this whole campus, because there’s not
enough intelligent people to have any idea what
communism is even about. So that was just a
misrepresentation of the facts. Any number of
times, in the actual news articlcs, they just made
up stories.

They made up stories, like they said the
ROTC people pulled the plug on the speaker

equipment for the demonstrators down at the
Manzanita Bowl. Well, there was no speaking
equipment there; there was no plug to pull; there
was no electrical force. It just never happened.
And any number of times this paper’s editorial
policy was put into the news articles, and the news
articles were twisted and just fabricated stories
and some person’s imagination. The people who
wrote the news articles obviously weren’t even
at the demonstration, had no idea what was go¬
ing on.

Yes. What was your reaction to the violence that
followed the Governor’s Day—the bombing of
the ROTC and the Hobbit Hole?

Well, in the first place, no violence in my
estimation ever happened. There was no violence
following the Governor’s Day thing, except an
empty building, which is simply a manifestation
of the militarism in our society, was bombed.
Now, a little paint was scorched off one room.
There was never any danger to any person and
very little danger that any property would be de¬
stroyed, with the exception of a little paint off
one room. Now, this was played up to be a major
fire bombing like happens at Bank of America in
Santa Barbara or Cal or Stanford or something,
where they have major property destruction due
to a Molotov cocktail. There were never any
people or persons ever hurt or endangered with
certain exceptions.

Now, there’s a qualitative and a quantitative
difference between bombing Flartman Flail and
burning a little paint off a wall and setting on
fire a sleeping residence in the middle of the
morning when people are living in it. And now,
this I attribute solely to the fiery rhetoric and the
totally insane rhetoric of the drunken courthouse
guard who claims to be a state senator from Ne¬
vada, James Slattery, who went on TV in a to¬
tally insane statement and said that they ought to
turn the cowboys loose and let them run the long-
hairs off the campus. Well, if any protestor on
this campus would have said that, they would
have had him in jail immediately for inciting to
riot.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Now, this man incited to riot over the public
media and certainly should be prosecuted for it.
I place the blame for that on him and upon the
fact that this group of people, who I assume
(which is possibly not good) that these were the
Aggie type, the Sundowner type, whose whole
life is bent on violence. These are the very vio¬
lent people who threatened my life, who threat¬
ened to beat me up, who threatened to get their
guns and run all the commies—that’s their
word—off the campus, who are mostly incoher¬
ent drunks, and who, when they threatened me,
were staggering around the Pizza Oven very, very
drunk with wine all over them in their normal
Levi’s and wine-splattered T-shirts. Now, there
is the potential for violence among them. They
shouldn’t be whipped up and agitated by people
in supposedly responsible positions such as
James Slattery.

Or Bill Raggio, the district attorney, who was
another fool, and who was also one of those who
heated up the rhetoric and used . . .what was the
term? What type of rhetoric? The cooling off that
Nixon was talking about. Well, types like Spiro
Agnew and Richard Nixon and Bill Raggio and
James Slattery—these types of public figures are
using rhetoric which is inflammatory. Now, the
bombing of the Hobbit Hole has to be, partially,
at least, attributed to them and attributed to the
ignorant violence that lashes back at the slight¬
est disturbance in the status quo.

Yes. What was your immediate reaction on hear¬
ing about both? Did you conclude that anybody
in particular might have done this, in your opin¬
ion? What was your first reaction, like to the
ROTC?

Well, when the ROTC building was bombed,
I was home in bed. And the next day I didn’t
even know. I walked right by the building the
next day to come to class—well, not to come to
class, since I didn’t go to class that week, but to
come to my office to work and do some research.
I walked right by the building and didn’t know
anything was wrong with it, except that they had
a soldier up there walking around. I gather now

he was playing guard, but I didn’t know it. Well,
when I found out that it had been bombed, or
that one beer bottle of gasoline was thrown at it,
I didn’t make any prior assumptions, because the
people I knew who might be suspected of bomb¬
ing it just weren’t that type of people. It could
have been somebody in the so-called long-hair
group, and it could have also been a disenchanted
ROTC cadet, as an example.

Now, my reaction when the Hobbit Hole was
bombed—which showed my bias—I automati¬
cally assumed it was somebody in the so-called
cowboy group that did that. Somebody like the
Sundowners, who would threaten to do it, or just
people of that ilk.

What category of participant — student, faculty,
or outsider—do you feel was most effective in
fomenting the violence that erupted? And you
may have answered that already.

Well, yes. It was definitely the rhetoric. The
reaction to the slight disturbance was by people
in so-called responsible positions, and that in¬
cludes President N. Edd Miller; it includes
Slattery and Mel Farr with their stupid and just
absolutely incoherent and irresponsible state¬
ments on the news media. It was the news media’s
whipping up violence and trouble and using in¬
flammatory rhetoric in the newspapers and across
the radios.

That editorial on KOLO was the most inflam¬
matory piece of radio editorial that I have ever
heard in this country. And that is the truth. I mean,
it was an attempt to agitate people. So I place
the blame a great deal. . . although I don’t think
any violence occurred, with the exception of the
bombing at the Hobbit Hole, where lives were
truly put in danger. And that was done not by the
people, the dissenters, but by the persons who
think that they are all-American citizens.

I blame it on these people in so-called re¬
sponsible positions. N. Edd Miller has to take at
least part of the blame for that, because he was
the first one to start talking about violence. And
by the time the newspapers and N. Edd Miller
and James Slattery and Mel Farr and Bill Raggio

WILLIAM G. COPREN

got through, and a few of the vigilante commit¬
tees downtown got through, a person who hadn’t
come by the university would have thought there
wasn’t a brick left standing upon a brick up here,
when nothing had happened yet.

Yes. Do you think outsiders figured heavily in
the demonstrators?

No. As far as I know, I only can think of four
or five people who were from off campus, who
weren’t students. And they weren’t here in the
original demonstration. They came later during
the week of discussions and rap sessions that
went on. They then participated in that. But then
there was never any violence or any threat of vio¬
lence in those. Now, there were, you know, one
or two of those people. It was mostly students.
Well, almost 99.9 percent were students at the
University of Nevada.

Yes. What actions do you feel were most effec¬
tive in cooling off the situation ?

Well, it’d be actions of men like Paul
Adamian. Without him trying to prevent any real
violence from breaking out .... The use of the
faculty to try to talk with him and committees
and diffuse the student dissent, that was effec¬
tive. Allowing large rap sessions and student
government sessions where 700 or 800 people
gathered and tried to talk back and forth both
sides of the question, I think that was useful in
preventing violence. I don’t know if it was use¬
ful. I personally think it was destructive, because
I think that violence might have been the only
answer at that time. But it did diffuse whatever
went on here.

Now, the reaction that came later, when they
are going to persecute Paul Adamian and Fred
Maher, now that’s the type of thing that is sure to
bring violence on sooner or later. And the reac¬
tion of the regents in suggesting they might cen¬
sor the newspaper and suggesting passing laws
before the fact—before there’s any problem,
passing policy, setting up rules of conduct, such
as that—dissent will be impossible, taking away

essentially the first amendment freedoms of the
students. Now, those kind of things will tend to
cause violence.

Yes. Do you feel that there are some kinds of vio¬
lence that are more effective than others? You
men tioned that you felt that maybe a confronta¬
tion of some kind might have been a good thing.
What kind of confrontation is good, and what kind
is bad? Can you make any kind of generaliza¬
tion ?

No. I don’t even want to answer that ques¬
tion.

OK. How do you think events on campus affect
the university’s image with outsiders?

Well, that depends who the outsiders are.
Now, in the first place, the events themselves
wouldn’t affect anybody, because it could have
just been explained, the truth told what happened,
and nothing much would have come of it. But
when the news media played it up to be such a
big event and used the rhetoric they used, the
inflammable rhetoric, then it probably hurt the
university’s image.

Now, I personally called some people who
set up a vigilante committee of alumni and asked
to come down and talk to them, because I’m the
president of an honor society, and I told them I
had some constructive suggestions that they
might want to consider. And these people didn’t
care about that. They didn’t care about the uni¬
versity. I told them that we needed help with the
library. And the man specifically said—and this
is that Hawkins, who is a stockbroker for
Goodbody and Company—that they weren’t in¬
terested in that, and if they were, it was only sec¬
ondary. They want to establish order.

So they don’t care—the outsiders, particu¬
larly in this state—whether the university goes
to hell or not. If it crumbles around their ears,
they don’t care, as long as it does it quietly and
doesn’t upset anybody. And, you know, it’s that
simple. The university, academically, has a very
poor image already; there’s no doubt about that.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

In any other state in the union-and I come from
California-Nevada is more or less a laughing¬
stock. A degree from here means very little. So.
academically, it doesn’t have much of an image.
As a passive, conservative, beer-drinking school,
now, it has a image as a party school, so I think
that’s very dangerous. I mean, that’s a very poor
image. It’s not one that we want to have con¬
tinue.

So I think that within the state this hurt the
university, because it’s sure to bring reaction from
fools, a reaction through ignorance that is liable
to hurt any attempt to improve the university aca¬
demically. Now, people in this state are quite
willing to improve the university as far as sports
go or sending their kids up here to drink beer,
but they won’t do anything in this state to im¬
prove the school academically.

Yes. I hate to have you label or characterize
people or fit them groups, but if we were talking
about the dissenters and the cowboys or the
Aggies, what are their individual images, do you
think, with the community as a whole?

Well, now, the cow-county kids that come
out of Churchill County, specifically, Lander
County, Douglas County, these arc upstanding,
hardworking American farm boys, a lot of them,
and there’s no doubt but that they are. They are
also very ignorant, very narrow-minded, and
they’re very much supported by a very narrow¬
minded public in this state that identifies with
them, because they are the violence-prone types.
They drink beer, and they’re just the average Joe.

Now, the outside world does not identify with
men who wear their hair a little longer than usual,
and they don’t like them because they’re differ¬
ent. And in a mass-conformist country, people
who are different are automatically disliked.
Well, Christ was different, and he was disliked a
great deal. Every dissenter has been. In this state
they’re really disliked.

What function do you feel that the university
should have in focusing public opinion or in, let’s

say, political life? Or do you think the university
has a function?

Oh, I think it has a function. It should take
an active part; it should be the leader. Wendell
Phillips, the abolitionist (this is for all you people
who aren’t historians), said that college-bred men
should agitate continually, that they should open
up the issues and point out the moral and ethical
issues to the masses. Now, the university has done
this. With the Morrill Act, when industry and
agriculture demanded action, the university was
the one who took the first step. They set up these
industrial colleges. They’ve been active in de¬
veloping the country. In the 1920s, when there
was demand for... big business needed trained
people, the universities immediately responded
to this need by establishing business schools. And
when Sputnik went up, the universities took the
lead in developing physicists and mathemati¬
cians, and they were a leading social and eco¬
nomic factor in the country.

Now, when the minority groups, like the
blacks and the Indians, need help, when the poor
need help and you ask the university to take the
lead in involving itself and looking for some clar¬
ity in these social problems, they refuse to do
this, simply because money talks, and all of the
old platitudes and abstracts of justice and equal¬
ity and liberty and freedom don’t really mean
anything. But money does.

What about politically? Do you think the faculty
on a campus should involve themselves politi¬
cally, and if so, to what extent?

Well, they’re supposedly professionals at
this. They are supposedly the most learned and
most knowledgeable people in the country. They
are the ones who should be talking and taking
part in the politics. A political scientist is sup¬
posed to know something about politics. He
should take paid in it. I don’t think now that he
should propagandize in the classroom, but I think
he should take paid as a human being outside the
classroom, and I think he should take paid as a

WILLIAM G. COPREN

professional outside the classroom and try to have
the university take part—now, not in partisan
politics, but in helping in bringing about neces¬
sary change in the American society in line with
the American ideas.

In line with the American ideas, which you would
consider what?

The constitutional ideas, the Declaration of
Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the Four¬
teenth and Fifteenth Amendments, things like
that, the four freedoms. Bringing about what’s
supposedly the American dream: equality and
freedom and liberty and justice for all. And you
know, you pledge allegiance to a flag for that,
supposedly. They should be leaders and moving
the country toward democracy.

Yes. In what way can faculty members be effec¬
tive, let’s say, that are not teaching subjects that
are directly related to activism? Is there some
way that they can be effective, too ?

Well, I think there is no such thing as some
subject that isn’t directly related to activism. The
scientist, as an example, has certainly been an
activist. The great scientists, Einstein, Max
Planck, Glenn T. Seaborg, Oppenheimer—those
people—they’ve always been politically aware
of what the results on mankind would be of their
discoveries and their progress in the physical
sciences. The chemists and the biologists can be
very aware of the problems of dealing with
chemical warfare, with insecticides, with ecol¬
ogy—all these things that are very important to
being human beings. The social scientists—that’s
their profession. They are supposed to be deal¬
ing with people, not with classrooms. They’re
not supposed to be dealing in theories; they’re
“social scientists.” That means that they are sup¬
posed to be dealing with people.

***

I think it’s going in two directions. First, I
think the old 1930s liberal types will continue to

set up committees and peace and freedom com¬
mittees and Northern Nevada Conference for
Peace and things like that, which are totally in¬
effective, and the president specifically has said
that demonstrations and petitions and things like
that have no effect on him, and he watches tele¬
vision. Well, he watches football games while
other people demonstrate.

Now, the peace faction .... Personally, a
lot of people now feel that they’re for peace in
Vietnam, but that doesn’t necessarily mean
they’re pacifists. And they are for opening a sec¬
ond front in this country. The peace movement
will become more violent, I think, and more mili¬
tant, because instead of reacting to it in a con¬
structive manner, the system has tried to repress
it and oppress it.

The system no longer works now. It has been
subverted by President Nixon, and the Constitu¬
tion has been subverted by him. The responsive
legislative, democratic representation ideas have
been subverted by things like seniority systems.
The executive branch of the government and the
legislative branch are quite willing to react im¬
mediately and respond immediately to economic
problems if these economic problems affect big
business. They do not respond at all to any so¬
cial evils or social ills or social problems of
people who don’t have money. So the system just
does not work.

You can’t elect a democratic president, and
that’s going to cure all your ills, like the 1950s
liberals thought. All they needed was to elect
another Flarry Truman. Well, that won’t cure all
your ills, and the system doesn’t work. It is just
getting worse and worse and worse, because the
government no longer controls the country, if they
ever did. It is in the hands of big business—the
large corporations, very large corporations—and
they make the policies, and government responds
to them. It’s almost the spoilsman in a gilded age-
type psychology, political psychology and phi¬
losophy.

So violence, as pointed out in this campus in
the demonstration, got action ; it got some kind
of action. It woke people up. Even if the action
and reaction was bad or misdirected or ignorant.

governor’s DAY 1970

it still got some kind of action. Just the threat of
violence, the disturbance, just a slight disturbance
got.... Whereas, all kinds of petitions and at¬
tempts at reform have been total failures and have
been ignored, or committees have been ap¬
pointed. And one of the best ways is to appoint a
committee to study it. The president appoints
committees, like the committee on violence, to
study violence in America. They come up after
three or four years of study, and he just reads the
report and throws it away, if he ever reads it.

Now in the university. President Miller keeps
appointing committees to investigate dining com¬
mons problems, residence hall problems. The
student bill of rights continues to go through
channels until it’s just committeed to death, and
everybody forgets it, and nothing happens. But a
threat of violence and violence itself in the stu¬
dent movement and in the peace movement seems
to bring some kind of response. Now, the re¬
sponse most of the time is negative, but among
some people it has been positive. And it appears
violence seems necessary to bring reform. In the
1930s, the threat of violence in populism brought
some types of reform. If we’re going to reform a
basically violent society, we’ll need violence to
do it.

Yes. Are there any other commen ts that you ’d like
to make?

Well, just one. A rumor I heard that might be
worth investigating to a future researcher was that
the police, as of this date . . . which is May 28
[1970]? Well, this was two days ago, so on the
twenty-sixth of May, I was led to understand that
the law enforcement agencies have suspects with
evidence about the people who burned the Hobbit
Hole, but they are refusing to arrest anybody until
they also find some substantial suspects who they
can take to court with a good case for who sup¬
posedly burned the Hartman Hall. Now that’s
simply a rumor, but it might be well worth look¬
ing into, because there ought to be eventually
some type of documents to document that fact, if
it’s true.

Thomas Cosgrove

June 5, 1970

To start off the interview, would you like to give
your name and what you consider your home¬
town and your position?

OK. My name is Tom Cosgrove. I work over
at the Center for Religion and Life, and I’m pro¬
gram coordinator at the center. I’m originally from
New York and have been living in Reno just for
this year.

I see. Why do you think you were chosen to be
interviewed?

My guess is that the three of us at the cen¬
ter—John Dodson, John Marschall, and myself—
were fairly involved with the issues of that week,
up to the evening after the silent vigil service.
Some of the poster-making for the next day’s ser¬
vice took place in the center. And we also planned,
with some other faculty members, the memorial
service for the Kent State students and were also
involved in several of the meetings—kind of con¬
frontation meetings—on campus between, say,
the aggie students and the arts and science crowd.
So, we were very busy that week in the middle of
all the activities. I'm sure that’s it.

Probably. What was your own reaction to Presi¬
dent Nixon’s decision to send troops into Cam¬
bodia ?

Well, I was very disappointed, to say the least.
I understood his statement about, you know, a
temporary measure, and yet even on those
grounds, I had some objection to us really invad¬
ing another country. And it seemed to me that it
was inappropriate.

In what way do you think that this decision to go
into Cambodia was related to what happened next
on the University of Nevada, Reno campus —
meetings or demonstrations arranged or anything
like that? Do you think there was a direct con¬
nection ?

Oh, very much so. Of course, the most obvi¬
ous one, I suppose, is the Governor’s Day situa¬
tion. That one was announced on the weekend,
and then, of course, Monday was the first day
that we’ve had the students back on campus. And
I think most of the activity that week was in reac¬
tion first to just the decision on the part of some,
an anger about that related to the university func¬
tion that coincidentally happened to be an ROTC
celebration for Governor’s Day. And put those

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

two things together, and that was the obvious
point of attack. The Kent State situation just made
that so much worse, I think.

Yes. Well, what was your reaction, say, to things
that happened in other parts of the country, like
Kent State and Jackson, Mississippi?

Well, I was really appalled at it, especially
the Kent State situation. I think it is important to
keep protests under control and to keep them
peaceful, and yet I feel as if students do have a
right to make their position known. If it comes to
disrupting activities on campus or, you know,
preventing classes from being held or this sort of
thing, I think that’s another question, and that does
need to be dealt with, but I would hope peace¬
ably. And even calling in the national guard: I
can see at some point, when the situation got very
bad, that it might be necessary to do something
like that. But I don’t think that they should carry
loaded weapons.

Yes. Now, regarding the Governor’s Day activi¬
ties here on this campus, what do you think of the
arrangements for the observances or the cer¬
emony—the traditional ceremony of Governor’s
Day this year.

Well, it seems to me that there are other per¬
haps more fitting occasions for the governor to
appeal - on campus than simply for an ROTC cel¬
ebration. Not that he shouldn’t be present at that,
but that we would put those two things together,
at the one time of the year where the governor
officially visits campus. I think there would be a
lot of other occasions when he could be here. And
it really is a question, in my mind, why we choose
that day and that particular observance. I mean,
the indication which some could get from that is
that the one thing that the governor is the most
interested in is ROTC. And I don’t think ROTC
represents the prime function of the university.
And if he’s going to come and visit the univer¬
sity, it seems to me he could be involved in some¬
thing that was much more directly connected with
a larger scope of education.

Yes. What was your reaction to the demonstra¬
tions?

Well, I was there for the rally. I thought that
the first part (that is, when the protestors arrived
and were given permission to march around the
field and, in a sense, have their say before the
ceremony started), I was very happy that Presi¬
dent Miller allowed them to do that. I think that
was a very tactical move as well as a good move
inasmuch as he was acknowledging a different
viewpoint. And I think that phase of it was
handled very well.

Once the ceremony got stalled, there were,
you know—as everyone knows, I suppose—dif¬
ferent individuals who were shouting things and
who were doing some very inappropriate things
during the ceremony. The most inappropriate was
probably the blowing of the taps when the par¬
ents were awarded. And I think that was very poor
taste. However, I think that we’re talking there
about an isolated number of students, a few radi¬
cal students who perhaps lost their head and
weren’t thinking of the total situation. On the
other hand, I think that by and large the group
that was there did handle themselves rather well.

I know of some students who, for instance,
left when the taps were blown. They were there
for the demonstration and to have their say, but
they found that to be appalling, and they left. And
I was sitting in the far end of the stand, and it
seemed to me that most of the students that were
around me were being very respectful and were
quite annoyed at those who weren’t.

I think it’s very unfortunate that the picture
that was painted, in the minds of many people,
was that it was just a total disregard for what was
going on and a lack of respect. I don’t think that’s
true. I think it was a question of a few individu¬
als and not the majority.

Yes. Well, then what do you think of all of the
demonstration? What was the most effective part
of it—when they just came in and marched?

Oh, you mean on that day or during the week?

THOMAS COSGROVE

Well, at that particular demonstration. You men¬
tioned the differen t phases of it.

Well, I think it’s the first part: the fact that
they went there, and they marched around the
field and then, I suppose, connected with that—
those students that sat and stayed for the ceremony
and were quiet and who, for instance, during the
“Star Spangled Banner” did stand. I mean, I think
there are other places in the country where this
kind of thing would go on where they’d even play
the national anthem, and they would just sit. And,
you know, that didn’t take place. They stood, and
many people held up a peace symbol during that,
which I think was a way of saying, “We believe
in what our country stands for, and part of that,
we feel, is peace. And so we’re saying both things,
but we’re saying it quietly. We’re letting people
know where we stand, but we’re not being disre¬
spectful or disregarding another point of view.”

I’m glad you put that in. I hadn’t heard it.

Oh, yes. That really struck me—that, and
when the parents got their awards, I think a good
number of people were quiet. A few people were
not.

OK, then, what was your reaction to the violence
that followed Governor’s Day: first, the bomb¬
ing of the ROTC building and then the Hobbit
Hole?

Well, there again, I think more than anything
else, that really set a lot of people in Reno off,
and, of course, some reactions against the cam¬
pus, the university. I think in the minds of a lot of
people, that’s the peace group, or this group of
five hundred students who were doing this, you
know. I don’t think that was the case. I don’t be¬
lieve we know yet who actually threw the bomb.

“[When the national anthem was played] they stood, and many people held up a peace symbol during that, which
I think was a way of saying, ‘We believe in what our country stands for, and part of that, we feel, is peace.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

From working with some of the students who rep¬
resented the peace stand, I don’t believe it was
any of them. There were some out-of-towners.
Some of them, I think, were from Reno, but came
back to Reno for this, who were just around.

My guess is—and there’s no proof for it—
that it was one or two students who really weren’t
that involved in the movement, but who were
angry and just decided on their own that they
would do this. And I think it’s unfortunate that it
got associated with that group, because one of
the things that that group constantly stressed as a
group was “We don’t want any violence. We’re
standing for peace, and therefore, let’s not have
something violent in our protests.”

Well then, that was the ROTC building bombing
that you were talking about. And then suddenly
the Hobbit Hole got fire-bombed.

The Flobbit Flole. You know, I have no idea
or even a clue as to what group was responsible
for that. I think that’s, you know, another unfor¬
tunate incident. I really don’t think it’s been ever
put on the peace group, because that was their
headquaiders, [laughter] So I guess more than
anything else, my reaction was that that was an
overreaction to what this group had done.

Yes. You ’ ve more or less answered the next ques¬
tion. We have been asking which category of par¬
ticipants — student, faculty, or outsider—would
you feel was most effective in fomenting violence.
And you ’ve really spoken to that. Is there any¬
thing you want to add?

No, I think it was outsiders—not only in those
two incidents, but at some of the meetings that
took place, some of these outsiders did seem to
be frying to, in a way, disrupt the meeting and in
another way, incite the group to violence. And I
know of one meeting when the students them¬
selves said, “Look, we’re tired of listening to you.
We’d like you to leave.” And they were ousted
from the meeting.

Yes. What actions do you feel were most effective
in preven ting any further violence or in cooling
off the situation that occurred after these bomb¬
ings?

Well, I’m trying to think of the sequence.
Well, the two things that I thought were very ef¬
fective just in terms of a healthy stand, I think,
were the eight o’clock vigil on Thursday night,
the silent vigil, when for about fifteen or twenty
minutes, this large group of students sat on the
lawn in Manzanita Bowl and held candles and
didn’t say anything.

And then the next day, the memorial service
for the Kent students I thought was very well
handled and very respectfully done and quiet
again. I think people got the message of what the
group was trying to say, mostly through those two
events. As far as cooling off after that, I think it
was simply the pressure of exams and papers to
be finished and all that.

It wasn’t any particular group or anything like
that? It just naturally cooled off.

Well, I want to take that back, because I think
there were a couple of confrontations that took
place, I believe, on Friday afternoon between the
ag and mining students and some of the arts and
science people, where they had a chance to not
just talk about the issue of Cambodia, but the dif¬
ferences that exist between those two groups. And
it was, I think, one of the first times when those
groups got together and talked really directly and
said, “Well, we think this of you, and we think
that of you.” And I think that’s just the beginning
of something that hopefully can continue. And I
think that they did begin to understand a little
better the other’s point of view. I think that did
help with cooling off.

That’s good.

As I say, then the next week, I think it was
just a natural process of the pressure of exams,

THOMAS COSGROVE

and no matter how big the issue, well, when it
gets down to the nitty-gritty, you know, you have
to graduate, [laughter]

OK. You spoke something about this, but I’ll let
you expand, if you wish. How do you think events
on campus affect the university’s image to out¬
siders: people in town, people around the state,
and so forth?

How they do in general or in particular?

Well, say, these particular events. How did they
affect the university’s image?

Well, I think they were, I would say, unfortu¬
nately, detrimental to the university’s image. I
would say compared to what happened on a lot
of campuses (not only over this incident, but of
many others before), the events that we perceived
and participated in were really minor. I regret that
the violence that did take place was there, but I
don’t think on some sort of scale, that it was any¬
thing comparable to what we’ve seen on other
campuses. But the reaction to those events was
very strong, and in a way, it’s said to be that a lot
of the people in the community don’t really know
what violence is and are not ready to deal with it.
I think, unfortunately, they talked more about the
few incidents rather than the total picture. But
given that situation, I think it was detrimental to
the university’s image.

Well, what function should the university have in
focusing public opinion ?

Well, in my mind, I think one of the func¬
tions of the university ought to be to raise ques¬
tions. Certainly in the mind of the students, that’s
why they’re here, I suppose: to search out the
answers for those kind of basic questions and also
to do somewhat the same thing for the commu¬
nity. Maybe a way of saying that is this: I would
have been disappointed had there not been some
discussion, at least, or some reaction to President

Nixon’s decision. Not that it had to be against it,
but that at least the question would be raised, and
that in a university setting, it would be discussed
intelligently and rationally.

And that perhaps even groups would make
their stand known to the larger community. One
of the ways of doing that is through, I think, some
sort of peaceful demonstration or stand that be¬
comes more public at that point. And you know,
no matter what the stand is, that that kind of ac¬
tivity ought to be going on in the university as a
discussion of issues, and that somehow that ought
to be communicated to the public at large, so that
in that sense, the university raises the issue for
the others also.

Yes. Did you feel that the issues of academic free¬
dom are at all involved in participating in dem¬
onstrations?

You mean in the sense of canceling classes
and that sort of thing?

Yes, or in the sense of professors either speaking
out or not speaking out. Do you think this whole
question of academic freedom is involved when
it comes to participating in demonstrations?

Oh. Yes. I think very much so. It sort of fo¬
cuses that issue, I think. You know, it raises the
question: can the teacher say something (other
than, say, political science, where it would fit in
very naturally) or does he have a right in the class¬
room to raise a different issue, say, than the one
that he would be teaching for that day—to dis¬
cuss it? Does a teacher have the right? Say there
is some other activity like a demonstration tak¬
ing place on campus, can he cancel his class? I
think very much so, yes.

I think the issue does raise it in general, and
it did in this instance. I think President Miller’s
decision to allow professors to cancel their classes
if they wished and to allow students to not attend
classes demonstrates that.

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

How can students be effective politically? You
work with students one way or another. You know
what they’re thinking about. How can they be
effective politically?

Well, I think they can be effective by, first of
all, organizing themselves and, first of all, through
discussion, deciding “What is our stand?” And
truly “our” stand, that they come to some sort of
consensus together, just in a form for discussion
to cUn ify their own ideas. And then I think once
that is accomplished, they can make their posi¬
tion known through appropriate channels. If they
don’t use the appropriate channels, the effect is
destructive rather than constructive.

I see.

People just turn against them and tend to put
students in the box and say, “Well, there they go
again.” But I think if they take time and effort to
use channels that are already there through the
student organizations and the like, they can be
heard and will have more of a chance of being
listened to. And I think that as far as politically,
they can be effective because people know that
these will be the people in a few years who will
not only be doing the voting, but be in various
positions where they can implement some change.
And so I think an interested politician, if we’re
going to have politicians, should listen to this and
know to whom he is speaking. So I think that there
are a lot of people who are willing to listen to
them, but they’ll only be listened to if they use
the correct channels.

Yes. Well, then, you feel that voice should be heard
on policies, either governmental or political.

I think so, inasmuch as, you know, they are
citizens like the rest of us. [laughter]

Yes! [laughter]

I wouldn’t want to put them in a separate cat¬
egory. I mean that if any of us can be effective

politically, then I don’t see why students shouldn’t
be.

Yes. Where is the peace movement in this area
headed?

That’s a tough one. I couldn’t really answer
that, I don’t think, adequately.

Some people are aware of an attempt.

Yes. I think that’s where I would put it. I think
the most I can say is that I see a growing aware¬
ness of the war, raising questions about it. There
are more people who are against it. And you
know, I think they have their reasons. It’s not just
that they jump on the bandwagon, but they have
done some study and have their reasons for their
position. I don’t see much of an organized move¬
ment, but I think there is this growing awareness,
which may eventually become some sort of move¬
ment. But I don’t think that’s begun yet.

Do you have any other comments you ’cl like to
put on? This is your tape.

This is my tape! [laughter] No, I think we’ve
covered most of the things. Maybe I’ve said this
before, but I do think it’s important that a univer¬
sity be a place for rational exchange, and that the
issues affect all of us, such as the Cambodian is¬
sue or the race relations issues that are in the air,
or a lot of things of this sort. If the university is
truly an educative place in preparing people for
their future life and a deeper involvement, then
here, more than any place else, there ought to be
this ongoing discussion and not just blanket ac¬
ceptance of different issues. People ought to be
thinking, discussing, and hopefully communicat¬
ing this to the larger community.

I hate to think of the university as sort of a
white citadel on the hill where, you know, you go
there for a while, and you do something that no¬
body particularly understands, and then you come
out, and you get a job. But I think that the fact
that Reno has a university, that ought to make a

THOMAS COSGROVE

difference, and that there should be a lot more
communication going on between the people
downtown and the people on the hill.

I just hope that that kind of thing can con¬
tinue and grow. I think, again, that the reaction to
the incidents that took place reveal a lack of com¬
munication. You know, in a way, the university is
fine; it’s there, and it’s not bothering anybody,
[laughter] But as soon as something does come
out, well, then there’s this huge reaction to it,
which might say, “They never did anything be¬
fore, so what’s this?” And that, in itself, is unfor¬
tunate, I think.

I would hope that eventually there would be
more communication to the point that we would
expect to be hearing things from the university.
The university would have things to say to the
community, and the community would have
things to say to the university. So I just hope that
that can continue, and an awareness on the paid
of students of various issues. I hope that they
would use the means that are available to them
now—their different organizations and the stu¬
dent body government—and then more students
would get involved in it.

OK. Is that it?

I guess so.

OK. Thank you.

Joseph N. Crowley

June 8, 1970

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed for this program?

Well, I kind of wondered that myself. I sup¬
pose, perhaps, because I've been active in the
peace movement and politics, that sort of thing.

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to go to Cambodia with the United States
troops?

I was aghast and quite discouraged. For a
period of at least a couple of days, I was just to¬
tally dejected and thought about all of the activi¬
ties on behalf of the peace movement in which I,
and numerous others, had been a paid of over the
past four or five years. It seemed to me at that
moment in time it had all come to naught, which
was, I suppose, the source of my dismay.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

Well, that’s a little hard to say. One could
view it, I suppose, as a kind of catalytic agent.
One could view it in the context of the kind of
restlessness that pervades the modern student
generation—and I guess pervaded all student gen¬
erations. This might be stretching the point, but
it might be related to panty raids, goldfish swal¬
lowing, telephone booth stacking, and all that sort
of thing, except that it seems to me that this is of
a far more serious order.

I suppose there was kind of a sense of accep¬
tance—reluctant perhaps—that there was not
much that could be done about the peace issue
up to that point, because the president had fairly
well preempted any kind of meaningful or effec¬
tive activities. This was indicated by the collapse
of the moratorium committee and numerous other
things which happened. There was a kind of con¬
stituency there waiting to be molded. I mean, the
constituency was there, but had nothing to relate
to. Then all of a sudden there’s Cambodia, which
is perceived as retrogression and part of the same
old parcel and related to the same old kinds of
assumptions that have been governing the war
effort for the last six years. I think viewed in that

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Joe Crowley, 1970s.

context more than any other, the constituency was
always there. Cambodia was the event that it took
to mold it again.

What was your reaction to the events in other
parts of the country related to the Cambodia de¬
cision ?

Well, I felt not at all surprised that there was
such a strong reaction. Apparently, there were
elements in the administration who were sur¬
prised, but I wasn’t surprised. What kind of did
surprise me is the way in which the moderate “re¬
sponsible students” took over in many cases. We
witnessed at Berkeley where the militants, the
violence-oriented radicals, kind of had things their
own way for a number of years. Then all of a
sudden after Cambodia, you’ve got 15,000 “mod¬
erate” students who have taken over and appar¬

ently continue to do so. That surprised me. In spite
of the fact that there was sporadic violence at one
campus or another, for the most part it seemed to
me that the students who were taking over and
really becoming involved and interested were the
non-violent students.

Turning now to Governor’s Day activities here:
what did you think of the arrangements made for
the observance of Governor’s Day?

Well, I suppose one puts them in the context
of the state of Nevada, which is a conservative
state, and perhaps relates them to the kind of thing
that was happening Governor’s Day four years
ago when we had a mock battle on the turf of
Mackay Stadium (I think it was a demonstration
of counter-guerilla warfare). I had just come to
Nevada at that time to witness that sort of thing
happening, and I can remember how surprised I
was. I just was not yet adjusted to the political
climate of the state. If you put it in that frame¬
work, you could say, “My goodness, we’ve re¬
ally advanced now in four years. We’re not hav¬
ing mock battles and demonstrations of counter¬
guerilla warfare.”

The timing clearly was unfortunate. There
was not much that could be done. I was content
to let Governor’s Day proceed as usual and was
happy to see that there was an anti-Governor’s
Day rally, which was planned to be peaceful and
non-violent. It was planned to be a demonstra¬
tion of opposition to the kind of thing which the
students, at least, perceived as being armed and
glorified at Governor’s Day. But in the context
of Cambodia and of Kent State, it suddenly be¬
came far more inappropriate to peace-oriented
people than it otherwise would have been. I mean,
I think people had said it was a process of instant
radicalization. People perceived Governor’s Day
as somehow symbolic of Cambodia, symbolic of
Kent State, and symbolic of all the sickness and
the violence and killing in society. I think that
perhaps explains in part what happened.

What was your reaction to the demonstration?

JOSEPH N. CROWLEY

Again, I think it’s possible to view the thing
rationally and say, “Well, look, that sort of thing
ought not to happen.” However much one might
deplore the kinds of things for which the military
is partly responsible in Vietnam and Cambodia
and so on, it is a part of the campus. And if it is to
be made not a paid of the campus, there are chan¬
nels for doing that sort of thing.

There ought not to be the kind of obstruction
that there was. There ought not be the kind of
cat-calling that there was. I personally could not
participate in that kind of activity, nor in general
terms do I deem it an acceptable form of activity.
On the other hand, viewing the conditions as they
were and the feelings of the students, as well as
the highly emotionally charged nature of that
week and of those people, I think we can be thank¬
ful that it didn’t get any worse than it did. So,
while I don’t want to condone it, I nevertheless
can understand how it could happen. And I’m
certainly not intending to be critical of those
people who kind of got carried away. It’s regret¬
table that they did, perhaps, but entirely predict¬
able that they would have, given the circum¬
stances.

Did you feel it was necessary to participate in
the demonstrations or the other affairs?

It was my intention to proceed to the Manza-
nita Bowl. My information was that the march to
the stadium was to take place at, I think, 11:15 or
something like that, maybe 11:30. So I went down
there. But as I understand it, the people assembled
were so charged up and excited that they couldn’t
hold them there. So they proceeded to the sta¬
dium immediately, and I missed the whole thing.
What might have happened to me in that melee, I
really don’t know, but it was my intention to
peacefully participate and march around the
track—or whatever the plan was—and march off.
I think that sort of thing is quite appropriate as
long as it’s peacefully done. But as circumstances
had it, I missed the whole business.

What did you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration?

Well, now, not having been there, I really
couldn’t say what was and what was not effec¬
tive. It’s hai'd to separate any one part from the
whole, and it’s hard to say what you mean by
effective. In terms of its impression upon the
people who were there, I doubt that there was
any part that was effective. In terms of its effec¬
tiveness as a gesture on behalf of peace, again, I
would be hard-put to say.

It’s part of a cumulative collection of things
that happened. It’s unlikely, but historians may
one day be able to look back upon it and say,
“Demonstrations such as the one at Nevada were
effective in turning a corner towards peace,” or
that sort of thing—if that ever happens, if that
corner’s ever turned. But really, without being
there and without really knowing what you mean
by effective. I’d be hard-put to answer your ques¬
tion.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various people involved at the stadium —
the ROTC, the demonstrators, or the university
administration—to what happened there ?

What should have been the reaction? Well, I
think clearly it should have happened in the first
place. That is to say, there should have been a
demonstration. I think that’s quite appropriate,
again, so long as it’s peacefully done. I think what
should have happened from the point of view of
the students and faculty and others who were on
the march is that there should have been better
marshaling. I know there just wasn’t time for that,
and emotions were high; it just couldn’t be done.
But that’s one thing that ought to have happened
that might have prevented the untoward events
that did occur.

I think on the part of the authorities, there
might have been a better effort made towards
reaching an understanding the students before all
this ever took place. That’s hindsight and I’m not
trying to knock them for what happened. But I
think from the perspective of hindsight, I think it
might have behooved the administration, the
president, or some designated heads to establish
a line of communications with people who were

100

governor’s DAY 1970

staging the peace rally to work out a program
ahead of time. I think there might have been an
effort made on paid of the students holding the
rally to establish that line of the communication.
Now, maybe there was such an effort on one side
or the other or both. I don’t know.

But as I understand it, insofar as there was
an understanding, it was achieved while the march
was in progress, and that kind of thing we can’t
really expect too much of. There’s no informa¬
tion on the paid of the marchers and those who
are in control of the marchers as to what they’re
supposed to tell the marchers to do, so they re¬
ally can’t do anything on the spur of the moment.
I don’t mean to play the middle of the road, but I
think communications of that sort might be help¬
ful in preventing some of the things that happened.

Did you want to comment about the reaction of
the ROTC, what it should have been?

In the context, it might have been better to
call a halt to the little drills—the bayonet drills
and that sort of thing. Again, that’s hindsight.
Have to make it kind of like a battleground deci¬
sion, I guess: do the advance on the opposition or
do it not, in a manner of speaking. That could
have contributed, really, to an escalation of vio¬
lence.

If, for example, the cadets who were drilling
with fixed bayonets had managed to pierce some¬
body seriously, that could have been the cause
celebre right there. It might not have been Kent
State alone anymore: it might have been Kent
State and Nevada, the two relatively unlikely
places for that sort of thing to happen. Although
it might have seemed like a backing off, as long
as there was a danger that somebody was going
to get hurt, it might have been more advisable to
call a halt to the little drills that did endanger
people’s lives.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the fire bombings?

Well, of course, I abhor them. I don’t know—
I shouldn’t say “of course,” but I do abhor them.

and it’s explicable in several ways: one, that it’s
the work of a maniacal fringe which believes
solely in the politics of deed and is incapable of
thinking consequentially; or two, that it’s the work
of somebody who just gets a kick out of bombing
buildings—outsiders or whatever. My reaction
certainly would not have been and is not to con¬
demn the student body, the peaceniks, the cow¬
boys, or whomever. It may have been, indeed,
representatives of those groups (loosely defined)
who did the dirty deeds, but they certainly don’t
speak for the larger groups.

I know that insofar as the peace students were
concerned, that there was a handful of violent
types. Most of them were from outside the cam¬
pus; almost all that I knew of were. They were
pretty well isolated by the leadership of the peace
movement so that if it was someone like that who
did it, it certainly was not in any way a reflection
of the sentiments of the peace students.

What category of participant in the various af¬
fairs—the studen ts, the faculty, or ou tsiders—do
you think was most important in stirring up vio¬
lence on our campus?

Well, I think when you put the whole thing
in context, it’s explicable in terms of the reaction
of the community to the kind of threat to their
values that they perceived. It emanates from the
university. If one understands the process of so¬
cial change and the kind of things that a univer¬
sity stands for and always has, and one can ex¬
amine it coolly and objectively, you understand
why people react that way.

But I do think there’s been an overreaction. I
do think that we escaped at Nevada with a mini¬
mum of damage And we ought to be willing to
let bygones be bygones and forget about this,
because it’s an escalatory situation. If there’s one
thing that we’ve learned about in the last six years,
it’s the logic of escalation, and certainly we ought
to be able to avoid that kind of thing. Maybe it’s
parochial on my part, but my inclination would
be to place a major portion of the blame for the
tensions in terms of local groups: on people in
the community who overreact, people on the

JOSEPH N. CROWLEY

101

Board of Regents who overreact, and people on
the legislature who overreacted and simply added
to the possibility of escalation. If they had not
bestirred themselves to make these emotional and
visceral public statements, I think it could have
been possible to keep things much quieter.

What kind of actions do you feel were most effec¬
tive in preventing more violence after the fire
bombings?

Well, I think it’s a little hard to say, but I think
that there were some openings in the lines of com¬
munication. To put it another way, there was an
establishment of communication where there had
been none before between the groups that seem
to have been polarized. The long-hairs and the
cowboys, as the argot had it, sat down with each
other and hashed things out and talked things out,
and each could begin to understand the other’s
point of view. I’m not saying that everything was
peachy keen, but at least they began to talk.

Under the circumstances, that was the most
important thing because I think for all of us who
are interested and were worried about the situa¬
tion, we all perceive the possibility of this polar¬
ization manifesting itself in some kind of serious
violence. In some ways, this campus is unique, I
think, because it possesses that potential. If any
single thing might have avoided that manifesta¬
tion, I think it was the communications—the little
groups that began to meet and talk. (It consisted
largely of the leaders of both groups and a lot of
participants in both groups, and also the efforts, I
think, on the paid of sympathizers with one group
or another who, while sympathetic, were inter¬
ested in preventing any violence.) I know my
friends in agriculture were very industriously
going around trying to keep the tempers down
over there. The same thing was going on with the
peace marchers, faculty sympathizers, and cool
heads among the students. They fried to prevail,
and for the most part did.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image with outsiders?

There are several ways of perceiving that.
Student radicals would perceive what happened,
perhaps, as maybe a kind of beginning of the
making of Nevada. I mean, look: they’ve had fire
bombings there and things that are really groovy.
So, to them, the image is improving.

To the community in Nevada, the image has
been tai nished, because this is a state, and this is
a university, and this is a campus where that sort
of thing is not going to happen. This is a campus,
after all, which did the highly unusual thing of
honoring its president instead of chastising him.
In terms of what the image of the university is to
the average fellow out in the community, I think
it was tarnished by what happened, because now
some of his suspicions are reinforced about the
university in general—that it’s a bad place. It has
the effect of activating the latent anti-intellectu-
alism one finds in the community. I suspect some¬
thing like that, in some way, has something to do
with the image of the university.

What can the university do to focus public opin ¬
ion ?

I think it sorely needs to make an effort, or to
find people to help them make that effort, to reach
the community and tty to talk to them about what
a university is and always has been: a focus for
social change. There are lots of ways you can go
about doing that. I know the Center for Religion
and Life, for example, has embarked upon a
couple of programs, one in which I participated.
One was to send out emissaries, professors and
students, to go out and talk to certain churches in
town as a kind of, you know, testimonial to red-
blooded, middle class, good-living, American¬
way type thing.

I went to a Lutheran church and talked to
them, and that’s what I fried to tell them about:
what a university is, how they might make an ef¬
fort to learn to appreciate that, and how, in turn,
university folks might make an effort better to
appreciate the sentiments of the community. I had
a feeling that that little discussion was helpful.
Again, it’s a matter of communication. It was a

102

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

group that was, well, impatient and hostile to¬
wards the university, towards Governor’s Day,
towards the peace movement, and so on, and yet
willing to talk. I think the result of that particular
thing in which I participated was a kind of cool¬
ing down, and it was done in a lot of other
churches. The senators were also having a series
of town-gown discussions involving high-impact
people from the community and the university
students, faculty, administrators, to try and get it
together.

Well, anyway, that’s kind of a long-winded
answer to your question, but the first thing, I think,
is to try to help people understand what a univer¬
sity is; secondly, what a university is in the con¬
text of the 1970s; and thirdly, what kind of gen¬
eration we’ve raised up in the last twenty years.
People don’t understand that. Fathers don’t un¬
derstand their sons, and mothers don’t understand
their daughters. And a university can help, maybe,
in bridging the generation gap in a way.

Do you think issues of academic freedom are in¬
volved in participating in the demonstration ?

“This is a campus, after all, which did the highly un¬
usual thing of honoring its president instead of chas¬
tising him. ” On October 17,1969, students at the uni¬
versity declared “N. Edd Miller Day” as a way of cel¬
ebrating Miller’s performance as president.

Do you mean whether participation in a dem¬
onstration is itself covered by the general term
“academic freedom”? Yes.

Do you feel, as a faculty member, that your aca¬
demic freedom is involved when you participate
in a demonstration ?

Well, I think that academic freedom ought to
cover the freedom to participate in a demonstra¬
tion. I’m not sure, really, if that’s academic free¬
dom or just a kind of general freedom, so long as
it’s within the confines of non-interference with
the rights of others. I don’t think, for example,
that academic freedom permits you to stand in
the way of other people doing what they want to
do. I don’t believe in the concept of academic
freedom which says, “You have absolute freedom
to do whatever you please.” I hate to use the word,
but I think it has to be a “right” that’s responsibly
exercised if it’s ever going to mean anything, if
it’s ever going to last. But it might be considered
to be involved in some fashion in demonstrations.

How do you think students and faculty can be
effective politically? Or should they try to influ¬
ence governmental policy?

Now, if you’d asked me that question on the
day after Cambodia, I would have said, “The hell
with it, you know. It’s not worth it. Look at what
five years in the peace movement’s done for me
or for hundreds of thousands of other people.”
[laughter]

I just want to make sure I’m trying to be an
optimist, but I really think people ought to get
active. Well, it’s my view that they should. I must
say I’ve had my ups and downs on that score, but
I think there are all kinds of things wrong with
the system that I can see—that lots of other stu¬
dents and faculty can see. It’s very easy to criti¬
cize. And in a kind of coolly dispassionate way,
it might be easy to say, “Well, wouldn’t it be nice
if we had another kind of system in which all
these bad things didn’t happen?” Maybe it would
be. But the point is that if you’re realistic, this is
the one we have, and for all that’s wrong with it.

JOSEPH N. CROWLEY

103

it’s a fairly open and flexible system which does
admit participation if you’re organized and inter¬
ested enough.

So. I think students ought to participate in
one fashion or another within the system—maybe
it’s on the margins. But efforts to destroy the sys¬
tem will come to naught. They will probably be
counterproductive. I’m not interested in that, and
they ought not be, it seems to me. Enormous num¬
bers of students are now working on behalf of
peace candidates and particular issues like the
end-the-war amendment and field-of-govemment
amendment. There are just enormous numbers of
students and professors, particularly students, that
have been activated. It’s like seeing the McCarthy
thing all over again, only a lot of these are very
new people. I know this, because a dozen kids
have called me in the last three weeks. If any¬
thing, there’s a great dispersal of effort, and I think
they haven’t really learned enough about the sys¬
tem yet. But I think it’s a gratifying kind of activ¬
ity.

Where's the peace movement headed in this area ?

Nowhere. In northern Nevada, as far as I
know, it’s going nowhere. I was talking about the
dozens of calls I had earlier, and I’ve had to ex¬
plain to everyone that this is the way it is in Ne¬
vada. We used to have this organization called
the Northern Nevada Concern, and we did get
lots of activity generated in 1968, and we could
get a peace plan through the Democratic state
convention and so on. But then, of course, also
we didn’t get very many delegates to the national
convention. And along came Nixon and took the
edge off the peace movement here. And then
along came the campus unrest which followed
Cambodia. There was an interest in reactivating
the peace movement, and most of the people who
might have been active in taking an organizational
or leadership role in it were bogged down doing
other things—trying to keep the campus quiet and
so on. It just never got off the ground. So right
now, as far as I know, in northern Nevada insofar
as an organized peace movement is concerned,
there’s nothing there. I think there could be if

somebody or some group would pick it up and
put it together. But I don’t know if anybody’s do¬
ing it. So, it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

What other comments would you like to make
about this whole situation—the Governor’s Day,
the problems arising from the Cambodia deci¬
sion, the peace movement?

Campus peace? The whole thing? I think a
lot is still left undone on all of those fronts. As
far as the campus is concerned, I think the possi¬
bility of trouble is still there. There are a lot of
things that are happening now, and part of it is
the result of what I consider to be overreaction
by the authorities that could contribute to a re¬
building of tensions in the fall. So, I’m not sure
that we’ve seen the last of this.

Again, it’s a kind of historical perspective that
I’m looking for. One doesn’t necessarily look with
disfavor upon manifestations of alienation and
frustration, because they contribute to something:
perhaps a reformulation of goals, a reestablish¬
ment, or a reordering of priorities. In a way, it
might be said that this university joined up with
this spring—the university had come of age, so
to speak. It’s unfortunate, the specifics. Those
sorts of things are hard to condone, but even in
general in the terms of its contribution to the reso¬
lution of the problems of this society, including
the problem of peace and war, that maybe this
exemplified a minor contribution on the part of
the university.

As far as the general question of peace is
concerned, I really don’t know what to say. I have
a feeling that the administration is now launch¬
ing a campaign to convince Americans that Cam¬
bodia has been just an enormous success. It’s
apparent to anybody who reads the good news¬
papers (the ones reading between the lines) that
that’s not happened. If anything, we got ourselves
involved in a situation as potentially scary as the
one we’re presently involved in with Vietnam.
So, one can be terribly pessimistic about the war.
And I know it’s beginning immediate prospects
for success in the peace movement or the
Vietnamization or the resolution of war, so long

104

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

as this administration holds to certain assump¬
tions (and it certainly is) as the previous admin¬
istration had concerning our role in southeast Asia
due to a long period of frustration.

Frankie Sue Del Papa

June 16, 1970

Now, just for the record, if you ’ll state your name
and your residence, and what your major is.

My name is Frankie Sue Del Papa. I’m from
Las Vegas, Nevada, and I’m a political science
major.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Probably because of my position in student
government, and the fact that I did participate in
the ceremonies on Governor’s Day.

Now, what was your reaction to President Nixon’s
decision to go into Cambodia ?

I was upset. I didn’t get to see it on televi¬
sion. I knew that he was making a speech, and so
I asked friends of mine what he had said, and
when I found out that he was going into Cambo¬
dia, my first reaction was that I was upset.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

Well, I really don’t think there’s any positive
way of saying how much it was related. There
was some relation in that I know there are sev¬
eral people who were upset and discouraged at
this point. I think this was the thing that put a lot
of middle-of-the-roaders off the middle of the
road. And I think that was the relation to what
happened on this campus.

What was your reaction to the events in other
parts of the country related to the Cambodia de¬
cision?

Well, my reaction to events such as Kent
State, of course, how can I say? It was unbeliev¬
able. It was shocking. But I do think, and I hon¬
estly feel this way, that in many instances the press
has been overplaying things, and many times the
average American citizen just doesn’t know what
to believe.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangements
made for observing Governor’s Day?

Many people have said that with the state of
the nation, such as it was, with the incidents that
had happened just prior to Governor’s Day, Presi-

106

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

dent Miller should have called it off. I feel that
no, he shouldn’t have called it off. And I still feel
this campus is big enough for both types, for any
type of demonstration. I feel that those people
who want to have a peace rally should have the
right to have a peace rally. I feel those people
who want to have a Governor’s Day demonstra¬
tion to pass out ROTC scholarships—that’s fine,
they have the right to do that. When anyone steps
on anyone else’s right, then they’re wrong. I feel
the demonstrators at Governor’s Day had the right
to march around the track; they had the right to
go into the stands. They did not have the right to
make the catcalls and disrupt it the way they did,
because they were stepping on other people’s
rights.

Then when you get down to understanding
these people, perhaps it’s easier to understand if
you realize the frustration, too, these people have
been under. They’ve watched a war go on for
years and years, and people have been against
the war for about that long, too. I think that you
have to look at the whole spectrum, and you have
to understand the entire picture.

I think that President Miller had to proceed
with Governor’s Day because of two reasons: the
conservative area that we’re in, and secondly, this
is an election year and people will jump on the
bandwagon. We have to go to those same people
in the state legislature to get money to run this
university. And I think that he would have been
in serious trouble had he canceled the Governor’s
Day activities.

Well, what was your reaction to the demonstra¬
tion?

Let me say, first of all, I participated in the
Governor’s Day ceremonies because it was my
duty. I had been a member of College Coeds, but
I did not plan to go this year—but you never know
what you’re going to do anyway. I want to say
that first.

At the demonstration, I was upset when the
young man threw himself in front of the wheels
of the car, because there was a young driver, and
like we saw at Kent State, anything can happen. I

was sitting in the second car, and from my view¬
point, I thought that Professor Adamian was en¬
couraging people to throw themselves in front of
the cai‘. That’s the way it looked. Other people, I
believe, said, “No, that’s not the way it was.” But
it’s easy to understand the reaction, because I,
too, thought that’s the way it happened.

We got up to the stadium. I thought that it
was great that the people walked around. I don’t
know if I wanted to walk with them or not, but I
thought that it was really good. I thought that it
was wrong, and I thought that they really hurt
their cause when they got up into the stands, and
they continued harassing, because they had no
right to do that. I thought the most disgraceful
thing that happened was when the young man
played taps when the mother walked out onto the
field. I had been sitting next to her. I had had
lunch with her that afternoon, and she’s a fantas¬
tic woman. She didn’t deserve that. She’s gone
through her sorrow, and she and her husband had
the right to give any type of scholarship they
wanted to give. I thought that guy was wrong,
just completely wrong. I understand why they
trickled down, why people felt that they had to
trickle down: it’d be better than a big stampede
out of the stands onto the football field.

I thought that they were irresponsible, and I
thought that mob rule had taken over when they
were egging on the fear of guardsmen, because
those people are young guys. They had bayonets
in those guns, and if something would have hap¬
pened, it would have been the demonstrators’
fault, because you can only push people so far.
No matter how frustrated you yourself are, when
you start pushing other people, pretty soon they’ll
push back. The people we have to commend the
most are Colonel Hill and President Miller for
keeping their cool, and those ROTC cadets who
had to stand there at attention and take that.

It’s really funny, because a young guy came
into my office afterwards, and he said, “I thought
it was really great, because the peace people
worked out all their frustrations.” Yes, they
worked out all their frustrations, but at whose
cost? I heard people sitting behind me, people
who are in power, people who were former colo-

FRANKIE SUE DEL PAPA

107

nels of our cadets here, former military men them¬
selves, who were yelling for the Sierra Guards¬
men to go on. So, I mean, you get it from both
sides. Those people are wrong, and it’s really
funny to be caught there right in the middle, you
know, and you can’t do anything about either side,
you know. But I thought that the demonstrators
had a good thing, and they lost it when they didn’t
shut up.

What did you think was the most effect part of
the demonstration and of the Governor’s Day
observance ?

Most effective? I think “effective” would
mean differently to me than it would for the dem¬
onstrators. I guess they thought that they were
effective because they disrupted the whole cer¬
emony. I thought the most effective thing they
could have done would have been to march
around and shut up, and then march around af¬
terward. To me, that would have shown that, “Yes,
we are against war; yes, we are against the mili¬
tary; but you are fellow American citizens, and
we respect your rights, also.” I think that would
have been their most effective move. I think the
most moving thing about Governor’s Day, to me,
was the fact that the military did keep their cool,
which says something right there.

You ’ve already mentioned what the demonstra¬
tors should have done. What do you think should
have been the reaction or what do you think the
ROTC or the university administration could have
done in the situation up there at the stadium?

I can’t really say what they should have done,
because I am pleased with what they did do. I’m
pleased that President Miller did call in the po¬
lice. The police were there. They were not in the
locker room, like it was rumored. They were sta¬
tioned a couple of streets over. The police had
been notified. A lot of people, many who were
not even present, have criticized President Miller
and his handling of the situation. And I just don’t
know what I would have done had I been presi¬
dent of the university. But I’m glad nothing did

occur. However, I think in the future, if some¬
thing like this happens again, I don’t know if we’ll
see police, but I think we’ll probably see more
forcefulness on the university’s part. I don’t think
the university administration will take much of
this for very long. I think that the demonstrators
got away with it this time, but I think next time
they will probably push for, and get, a confronta¬
tion.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day: the firebombing of
Hartman Hall and the Hobbit Hole?

Well, I deplore violence, and I’d like to think
that it wasn’t the students that did it. I would hope
that it wasn’t. The people who did do it—who
could say what type of minds they have? I cer¬
tainly hope that they can find out who they are,
and I hope that justice is done.

What category of participant in these various
affairs—the students, the faculty, or outsiders —
do you feel was mostly important in fomenting
violence on the campus?

It’s really difficult to say, because we don’t
know to what degree there were outsiders present.
I know that I myself saw numerous people march¬
ing who I know are not students and not faculty
members. As far as the violence, they don’t have
any idea as to who did it. I couldn’t answer the
question any further.

Do you think outsiders were important?

Let me say, in my own experience, there were
specifically four outsiders at a senate meeting who
were causing trouble, who were yelling out—this
type of deal. There were numerous outsiders who
did march, but I just don’t have any idea as to the
amount of influence they had. I do know that there
are a couple of outsiders who personally just
turned me off, and I’d like to think they were in¬
volved just because I have a personal antagonism
towards them. But, to be perfectly honest, I
couldn’t say. I really couldn’t.

108

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preven ting more violence or cooling off the situ¬
ation after the firebombing?

Let me say, I was really proud of the entire
university community for the most paid: the fo¬
rums that they had over there in the student union
where people could sit down and talk on a one-
to-one basis. I thought the memorial service did
quite a bit. Just in the overall atmosphere, I think,
everyone was Lying to prevent violence. For a
few people, that’s what they want, and perhaps
that’s what they’ll get someday. But, to the re¬
sourcefulness and the responsiveness of various
people (the ag people, even the radicals them¬
selves—I mean, so Paul Adamian is “radical”), I
think everyone was making a genuine effort, and
I think that’s the reason why we didn’t have any
violence further than that.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s so-called “image” with outsiders?

Oh, this is something. I am so mad at the press
right now for, and it’s funny because we can sit
here, we can criticize, and we can get mad at the
people in the community if they were overreact¬
ing, but then you have to realize they’re not in
touch with the university. The alumni—they’re
concerned people. Perhaps they were the “rah-
rah” people who had all this school spirit when
they were here. But there are a lot of people who
are genuinely concerned and upset, and I think
that the university image has been affected some¬
what. To what degree, I really can’t say, and I
wouldn’t guess until after we get the money from
the state legislature, [laughter]

I think a lot of people have already jumped
on the bandwagon as far as campaigning, giving
fo lk s the idea, “Let’s clean ‘ern up. Let’s get ’em
out of there.” Flow successful they will be, we
don’t know yet. I certainly hope they’re not suc¬
cessful. Flowever, I do think that the press here
played up Governor’s Day a bit too much, but
they’ve somewhat lessened. I thought that the man
who recorded the Board of Regents meeting in
Elko was completely responsible. There were a

couple of things that happened up there that he
did not send in, that he thought were dead issues,
and I’m glad that he didn’t, because they could
have caused more trouble.

I think the press in Las Vegas played it up
terribly. I’m from Las Vegas, and I wrote a letter
to the editor down there, because this one head¬
line said “Reign of Terror at UNR” and all this
kind of deal. And my mother called, and she said,
“What’s going on up there?”

I said, “Oh, Mother,” you know, and I
couldn’t believe it. And I was just really disap¬
pointed with the press in Las Vegas. But see, you
have to look at the whole situation, because a lot
of people couldn’t understand Senator Lamb and
Senator Gibson’s remarks—not so much Lamb,
but especially Senator Gibson, because I worked
in the legislature, and this man is a responsible
man. For he and Senator Lamb to come out with
those remarks—you know, they couldn’t under¬
stand them up here. When they realize what the
newspaper is portraying down there, then it’s easy
to suggest. To answer the question, you have to
look at the total perspective of things and realize
that the image has been affected somewhat, but
we won’t know how much until after the state
legislature meets. In addition, we won’t know how
much either until we have lived under this “code
of conduct” until December, and we’ve lived
through the fall semester—until cold weather gets
here again. Because something may happen this
fall. We don’t know.

What can the university do to focus public opin¬
ion ?

Well, I know the Center and the associated
students together are having numerous “town and
gown” meetings over at the Center, where we’re
trying to bring some of the most influential people
of the community together with a whole handful
of students in all areas and all factions. There
would be student government people, radical
people—you know, the whole realm. Bring them
together, and have discussion. I know, myself, I’ve
been attending the alumni association meetings.
We’ve set up a speaker’s bureau to go out and

FRANKIE SUE DEL PAPA

109

speak to the various service groups, and the people
who belong to service groups are usually the most
concerned, the people who would take the time
to write a letter or do something like that. So, I
think the university is making a sincere effort;
however, I think the university is going to have
to keep this up, and not get caught back on its
haunches again. I think that’s part of the prob¬
lem, too—any instance to just let things slide,
and they catch up with you. So, I think that a con¬
tinuing effort is in line.

Do you feel that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participating in the demonstration ?

No, I don’t. Let me say, I think that a person,
an American citizen has the right to participate
in any demonstration if he or she desires, as long
as they do not step on someone else’s rights. So
the whole question of academic freedom, to me,
doesn’t need to enter the picture, because I take
that as a right of your citizenship.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally? Or should they be trying to influence gov¬
ernmental policy?

Oh, I definitely think they should. At the end
of my freshman year, I went to Sacramento to
campaign for [Archie] Pozzi, and it was a fantas¬
tic experience. We were canvassing; we were
doing telephoning, passing out pamphlets—ev¬
erything. I think this is a good way to get involved
in the political process. I think students can find
a candidate and work for them, and in turn I think
faculty can do the same thing. I believe two pro¬
fessors in the Political Science Department went
to the Democratic convention and were involved
in the writing of the platform.

I think faculty members, if they want to, can
get involved in this actively. If they don’t, if that’s
not their bag—I mean, if that’s not the way they
are—they should at the very least vote. I think
every student should. It’s their right; they should
exercise it. And if they have the time and the op¬
portunity, I think that financial support is always

welcome. They can perhaps, you know, manage
their call pool, or just talk up the candidates
among themselves. And I think that’s the politi¬
cal action as far as state, and local politics.

As far as political action on this campus, ev¬
ery faculty member is sent out a list of commit¬
tees that he wants to get on, and through the
ASUN office, the students can get on numerous
committees, if they want to. First of all, a lot of
people say, “Committees are ineffective.” The
only reason committees are ineffective is because
the people on those committees are not doing their
job—in most instances. Because if you really
push, if you’re really concerned, and if you fol¬
low up on what you do, somebody sooner or later
has got to take some action.

Yes, perhaps the administration will sit on
things, sometimes. I’ve served on faculty com¬
mittees, and I’ve gone to faculty senate meetings,
and in many instances when the Board of Re¬
gents and President Miller are asked for action,
those people have just sat there—and worse than
that, they’ve squabbled over picayunish minor
points, instead of getting these things out in time.
And for the faculty member to completely put
the blame on the administration? No. Because the
blame does not lie completely there. The blame
lies also with the faculty senate members and stu¬
dent members, too, because in many instances,
the student representatives do not attend the meet¬
ings and do not participate (and these are students
who ask to be put on these committees). So we’ve
lost their student representation. And where’s the
answer? Who knows? Because people push and
you tty, you solicit aid, you solicit help, and you
never know how effective you’re going to be,
because a lot depends on the individual, them¬
selves. And you can only push people so far.

Where is the peace movemen t in this area headed
now?

I would hope that they are going to keep
peaceful, and keep pushing. It all depends on what
happens June 30, and if we can get the troops out
of Cambodia. I know the news said this morning

110

governor’s DAY 1970

that they’ll be out a week before. But we’re in
such a ticklish situation that we can’t imagine the
whole scope.

All I will say about the peace movement is
that I sympathize with the peace people. I’m
against the war. too. I’m doing everything that I
feel I can do. I have not participated in the mora¬
torium because it is against my principles, in that
I feel the only hope we have of preventing an¬
other Vietnam is through education. That’s why
I attend classes, but that’s just me personally. I
think, however, that for any student, it’s his edu¬
cation, and if he wants to do that with his educa¬
tion, he’s paid the money, so that’s fine. He should
have the right to do it. I think that each individual
should keep working in every way that they see
possible.

Do you have other comments you would like to
make about the Governor’s Day events?

I could write a book on my comments, too!
[laughter] It’s just really strange being here—the
feelings that you have. You know. I’ve done a lot
of reports on campus unrest, and you read about
campus unrest, but it’s just entirely different when
you’re part of it. You know, there’s such a feel¬
ing that comes over you.

I know we were sitting in the stands, and it
was such a feeling of disgust when those people
wouldn’t shut up. You had to sit there and take it.
I knew that if we had called the law in to make
those people shut up, it would have gotten worse.
But it’s just a terrible feeling to just sit there and
have to take it. Oh, it’s just a terrible feeling. Well,
I think that’s probably why we’ve had so much
reaction and overreaction on the part of the pub¬
lic, too, because probably a lot of those people
were there.

I think individuals—especially in any posi¬
tion of authority or responsibility—cannot let
their personal feelings get the best of them. You
have to always keep in mind what’s best, you
know, for everyone. Nobody has said that life is
going to be just, and you have to accept the small

injustices in the hopes that there’s going to be a
better day.

I sincerely hope that we don’t have disrup¬
tive—and especially not violent—events happen¬
ing at this university, because I think that in this
community the conservative element’s answer
would probably be repression. I think that would
be a terrible shame, but demonstrators have to
realize that people will only be pushed so far, and
people will only take so much—especially in a
community such as we have here.

I think there are good people, very good
people. I read a report on campus changes by Sol
Linowitz, from the American Council on Educa¬
tion. 1 The report that he had was excellent, and
the recommendations that he gave were good rec¬
ommendations. (I would encourage anyone who
reads this tape to perhaps get a copy of that re¬
port.) I sent a copy of the report to all of the Board
of Regents. The points specifically were aimed
at trying to tell people to do everything in their
power to prevent the polarization, because once
you have the polarization, it’s going to be so hard
to establish lines of communication once again.
The second point that he brought up was, I
thought, excellent: try not to let this become a
political football, because once politics gets in¬
volved, and people make statements that they
have to back up later on (and perhaps wouldn’t
want to), they have to back them up because
they’re in that position. Then you’re really in
trouble. The only thing I can say is that I will
continue to do everything in my power to try and
ease things, but you just never can tell what’s
going to happen.

Do you want a restriction on your copy?

Oh, it doesn’t make any difference. This
won’t come out until 1974 anyway, will it?

The plan is to deposit the tapes in the archives,
and there will be no release of any tape until af¬
ter the investigation is over. Nineteen seventy-
four is our centennial, and that’s near the goal of

FRANKIE SUE DEL PAPA

111

the university history, but if you ’re satisfied with
no release until after the end of the investiga¬
tion ....

That’s fine. If what I said means that much
to them, they can use it. At least we’ve got a tape
to back it up. I’ve had so much trouble with the
press. You know, now I tell the press people, “I
haven’t read it. I haven’t seen it. I’ll get a state¬
ment down to you, and I’ll make a carbon copy
of it.” Because, you know, all these people are
criticizing the news media now. I know Gover¬
nor Reagan wants to restrict the recording, you
know, and they say it’s just a censorship and this
type of deal. Well, no, it’s not censorship.

It just makes me so mad, and I mean damn
mad, too, because I just get so frustrated. We were
in the state legislature, and they didn’t even re¬
port what we were doing up there in this legisla¬
tive internship program. There hadn’t been a word
about it until one guy got criticized because of
his long hair. You know, that’s not responsible
journalism. So many times. I’m just really mad
at the press. I think perhaps many people are over¬
reacting, but I’ve experienced it too, because they
take your words and they twist them, and they
take them out of context.

I think one important thing, too, would be
just for people to take what they read with a grain
of salt. You know, anybody can use anything they
want, [laughter]

Note

1. Special Committee on Campus Tensions. Campus
Tensions: Analysis and Recommendations. Report by
Sol M. Linowitz, Chairman, Washington: Publications
Division, American Council on Education, 1970.

John R. Doherty

June 5, 1970

If you’ll just, for the record, say your name, class,
and major.

John Doherty. Carson City. Nevada. Journal¬
ism, senior.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Probably because somebody, either through
people I know or through the publicity received,
found out that I was involved in the strike and
the protest that happened in the last couple of
weeks.

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s
Cambodia decision ?

Well, I thought it was a complete nullifica¬
tion of everything he’d said in his own campaign,
ever since he got in office, about his attempts to
end the war. It looked to me like he was increas¬
ing the scope, regardless of what the opinion and
feelings of the American people were.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

On this campus? Well, I know that the pro¬
testors first organized as a reaction to the Cam¬
bodia issue or invasion—whatever you want to
call it. The fact that the Kent students were killed
was a secondary matter that also gave impetus to
the organizers to get more people into it. But the
whole protest, I think, was a reaction to the Cam¬
bodian situation. They wanted to get together with
the rest of the universities in the United States
and demonstrate the fact that they were against
this move.

What was your reaction to the events in the rest
of the country after the Cambodia decision?

Well, I was glad to see that there were so
many people who were organizing to demonstrate
and use whatever means they had to try to influ¬
ence President Nixon. As he’s already stated be¬
fore, if he doesn’t choose to be influenced, he
won’t. And I think this time he couldn’t avoid it,
because the attempted influence was so wide-

114

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

spread. I don’t, myself, approve of the use of vio¬
lence as a means of influence, but I do approve
of the widespread use of nonviolent techniques.
If it involves a strike which would close down a
university—in order for it to stop for a minute
and consider what is going on and consider its
role in the country—then I’m behind that. But
the violent nature of it, I don’t approve of.

Regarding the Governor’s Day activities here on
this campus, what did you think of the arrange¬
ment for the observances—the governor’s ap¬
pearances, the ROTC award ceremony, and so
forth ?

Well, personally, last year I was in ROTC
myself (in fact, I received an award at this cer¬
emony last year). As far as being at Governor’s
Day, it was awfully centered around the military
aspect of the campus, which is not really what
the goal of the campus is. Because of the fact
that Governor Laxalt did come out and support
President Nixon’s Cambodian policy the day be¬
fore, and considering that several of the schools
all over the U.S. had canceled civil and military
award activities because of the Kent State
shootings, I and other people who were organiz¬
ing the protest felt that having Governor’s Day
and a military ceremony at that time was rather
out of taste. We felt that there should be some
attempt to change the proceedings.

What was your reaction to the demonstration ?

Well, I participated in the demonstration it¬
self. And as far as the number of people that were
involved, and considering that the people who
organized it had a short time to publicize the thing,
it was larger than I thought it would be. There
was little, if any, control over the people. There
was no real organized leadership of it, so to speak.
There were just some people who got the idea
up, and almost everything that happened did so
spontaneously from somebody who would get an
idea and decide to do it.

So, as far as that goes, I didn’t want to see
anything that could lead to a violent confronta¬

tion between police or especially between stu¬
dents, because that would be the worst thing that
could happen. I was pleased that that many people
did turn out and show they were aware of what
was going on—when apathy is quite often con¬
sidered the original sin of this campus. That
showed that it may not be. In the future, it may
be so even less.

Then, you did feel it was necessary to participate
in the demonstrations?

Yes, I felt it was. Some people asked me why
I did do this, and my only reaction is that there
wasn’t anything else I could do. I’m sure you’ve
heard the expression “up against a wall”—well,
that’s more or less where I feel the American
people are right now, as far as their own control
of their nation’s international policies and national
policies. The government has more or less be¬
come isolated from the people, and the only way
the people can get back into the governmental
process is through these large demonstrations. Un¬
fortunately, they arc still looked upon in the light
of being almost illegal, even though the right to
do so is guaranteed. I think it’s necessary, and
more or less the duty of people—even patriotic—
for them to become involved in what the nation
is doing and show whether they approve or dis¬
approve.

For one thing, the ballot box is no longer that
effective a means of demonstrating how you feel.
The nomination procedure is no longer in the
hands of the rank-and-file party members of the
majority of the American people who vote. It’s
in the hands of the interests who run the parties
on the higher level. I think the Chicago national
convention demonstrated this.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration and the most effective part of
the Governor’s Day observances?

The memorial service that was held Friday
was fitting and probably more acceptable, and it
had more of an influence on the people that were
there (whether you call them the so-called “cow-

JOHN R. DOHERTY

115

boy” types or faculty or just people who came to
see it). The memorial service and the candlelight
ceremony held the night before was effective,
because there was little political content, and it’s
just simply a memorial service in honor of the
four students who were killed. I think that any¬
body who is a member of an academic commu¬
nity can identify with these students. The memo¬
rial service is something everybody can get into
and identify with, whereas the political belief of
one faction is going to alienate another faction,
and therefore, does not have that much influence.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the ROTC, the demonstrators, and the univer¬
sity administration to the conflict that developed
over Governor’s Day?

Well, prior to Governor’s Day we had hoped
that possibly the Governor’s Day observance
would be postponed or even canceled, but it was
too late to postpone it. If they couldn’t do that,
we had hoped they would try to lessen the mili¬
tary aspect of it to a point where it was just merely
a Governor’s Day and not a military Governor’s
Day. The whole scope of the activities concerned
a reception with military and civil officials in the
Travis Lounge and then the presentation of
awai'ds on the field.

If you look at it from the point that he is our
governor, too, he’s not really looking at both sides.
We extended an invitation to him to speak at the
rally we had in the bowl before or after the
Governor’s Day ceremony at the stadium, but he
refused unconditionally and would under no cir¬
cumstances come and talk to the people there. So
we decided to go up there and talk to him. [laugh¬
ter]

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the bombings?

Well, as I said before, we were against the
violent nature, since this would do more harm to
anything we want to do. In fact, it was directly in
opposition to our own position, seeing as how
we were a peace movement. As for the ROTC

building, I don’t like to see any academic institu¬
tion bombed or anything like this. Personally, I
feel ROTC should be voluntary, but it still should
be there, and there shouldn’t be an attack beyond
this. If you’re going to attack something, you
might as well attack something that would have
some effect on the thing you’re trying to hit, and
an ROTC building really has no significance,
except maybe symbolic.

As far as the bombing of the Hobbit Hole, I
was much more influenced by that, since I lived
there. I wasn’t surprised that it happened, because
we’d had threats earlier that this would happen,
but we didn’t know if they would be canned out.
I was sony to see that anybody on this campus
should be pushed to the point where they’d have
to throw a bomb at Hartman Hall or at our house.
The people that are on the other side apparently
were better at it, because they did a better job.
[laughter] I was just hoping that this type of ac¬
tion wouldn’t become a regular form of protest
on this campus, or really, any other campus, be¬
cause it doesn’t accomplish anything. I made this
comment before to some of the news media who
asked me.

What category of participant — students, faculty,
or outsiders—do you think was most effective in
fomenting the violence?

A lot of people have tried to lay the blame
for the Hartman Hah bombing on people who are
not going to school here. But myself, looking at
it realistically, I feel it probably was students, and
probably students who were involved in the peace
movement, though it didn’t evolve out of any of
the leadership for the organization of the peace
protest. I think it probably was students.

Of course, the faculty would not be involved
in anything like this, and the people who were
from off campus who were here did cause some
disruption and some argument among the students
who were involved (about whether they should
be allowed to participate). I’ve known some of
them for a long time, and mostly, they were just
concerned. They probably felt that there was no
other way that they could demonstrate what they

116

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

wanted to do. But I don’t feel that they had any¬
thing to do with the bombings, and I saw them
several times during the whole several weeks’
activities, and most of their activities are mostly
with just either carrying signs or participating in
protests or the rallies. I don’t think they had any¬
thing to do with anything beyond that.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence, or in cooling down
what had built up?

I think the rap sessions that were held in the
Union and in the aggie building between the stu¬
dents on the right and the other factions helped.
Having a university cop [Doug Sherman] who
was, you know, on the side of the protestors also
helped, because just a regular cop would not have
been able to have any kind of understanding with
the students who were down there.

I think the action of the university and the
city of not overreacting with a show of police
strength, or something like this, is very commend¬
able. Because if there had been a strong show of
force from the community and from the school, I
know an awful lot of the people would have re¬
acted probably in a violent nature. And this is
something you really can’t control, because we
have no control over how many police show up
to tty to control something.

As we left the stadium on Governor’s Day,
you could see the police units across the high¬
way. There were approximately four police cars
and a paddy-wagon and about four more motor¬
cycles besides the police that were already there
at the stadium. So they were ready, but they
weren’t going to put them right there on the line
right away. I think some of the things that did
prevent a lot of violence included this restraint
and this decision to give us leeway and the ben¬
efit of the doubt that we wouldn’t get carried away
with something violent, something too outwardly
illegal or anything like that. It didn’t start off with
immediately giving a violent undertone to any¬
thing that would happen.

How do you think events on the campus affect
the university’s so-called image with outsiders?

Well, the image is almost concurrent with the
image of the rest of the state. If you talk to any¬
body who’s heard of the state of Nevada and the
university, they realize that it is a conservative
school and a conservative state. We were hoping
that we could show that even a conservative
school could be concerned with an issue which
was not really conservative or liberal. The prob¬
lem in the United States with the war and the ex¬
pansion of the war is anybody’s business, regard¬
less of what his political beliefs are. We weren’t
afraid of altering some people’s impression or
images of the university. Along with the other
four or five hundred universities who were also
having protests, we were more worried about the
possibility that we could influence President
Nixon, that we could give him this image, and
that at least in the university community there
were people who were concerned with what was
going on.

I’m sure that an awful lot of people felt that
it was an extremely small minority of students
who were causing all the activity up here and that
it possibly did not represent the majority, but it
did. I think it did represent a larger faction than
most people think. And as far as worrying about
the image of the school, if we worried about that,
[laughter] we probably wouldn’t do anything ex¬
cept go to school and go home and study all the
time we were here.

Well, what function do you think the university
should have in focusing public opinion?

Well, a university, historically, is set up as an
institution where new ideas and new practices can
be taught so that, ideally, the students who go
there can find a better way of life. I mean, the
fact that you build a university is an admission
that there can be a better way of life. But at the
same time, it seems that the community and the
state—and the rest of the nation for that matter—

JOHN R. DOHERTY

117

has more or less contradicted itself by refusing
to accept any lessons learned from the univer¬
sity. It selects the most intelligent and best-trained
people in the country—the professors—to come
here and teach, but refuses to listen to how to get
that better way of life that has been taught to their
own children.

Intellectual leadership should be one of the
roles of universities. They are centers of intellec¬
tual activity all across the United States, and in
any country. That’s more or less the scope of a
university’s activities at an intellectual level. But
restraints are placed on it by people who are not
involved in the university and aren’t aware of
what’s going on there. They try to treat it as if it
were a factory in which the main action is a physi¬
cal action: going there, doing homework, and
going to classes—rather than thinking, learning,
and realizing something and trying to take action
on it. When it does reach some kind of an intel¬
lectual understanding of a situation going on in
this country, I think it’s completely within the
scope of the university to take an action based
entirely upon its understanding of this and what
has been taught: to take an action to try to influ¬
ence or have some effect on what course the ac¬
tion will take.

Do you think that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participating in demonstrations?

You can look at the protest as maybe a field
trip for almost any class at the university. I think
a lot more could have been learned on that one
day by participating and thinking about the issue
at hand than by isolating yourself in a classroom
and learning about the theory of relativity or cell
mitosis. As far as people’s lives go, they’re go¬
ing to have to make sure that they are going to be
able to keep on living after they get out of the
university community.

You know, they say nine-tenths of your edu¬
cation at a university goes on outside the class¬
room. I think it’s especially adaptable and appli¬
cable in the situation of the protest: because there
was an awful high content of information that was

going back and forth, because of the rallies and
speakers, because of the information that was
passed out, and just because groups of students
were talking and trying to get with other students
and influence them to support the rally and the
strike. I don’t think you’re going to find too many
classes and curricula in the university which en¬
compass this area of knowledge.

So, I think such participation outside the
classroom is not an infringement of academic
freedom. Although there possibly can be a case
if there are efforts to close down a university by
strike, but we didn’t try to prevent anybody from
going to class who didn’t want to. It was a volun¬
tary idea to have people not go to class, so they
could more or less go to class in a different way
and try to learn on a different level. This aspect
of learning has been more or less overlooked by
the university, and there hasn’t been quite enough
teaching in this area, really.

How do you think that students and faculty can
be effective politically? Or should they be?

In some colleges here on the campus, politi¬
cal involvement is considered a pariah or a ta¬
boo. You just don’t do that while you’re in a uni¬
versity. But these people are citizens, and under
the system of government we have in the United
States, they are a pari of the governmental sys¬
tem, whether they are allowed to function as such
or not.

The professors are supposed to be more in¬
telligent and more well-trained members of the
society, and they are brought here to teach us. If
they give us all of these idealistic interpretations
of the principles that our country is supposed to
operate on, and they themselves fail to take any
action to demonstrate these principles, then
there’s really not any way that they can expect
their students to take them seriously. When a pro¬
fessor does take a stand on something, especially
something which is accepted by the mainstream
of American life (the right to protest, the right to
demonstrate, the right to express yourself) and
then restricts himself because of the position he’s

118

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

in, then he’s more or less just abdicated the posi¬
tion he’s taken in class by going outside and par¬
ticipating as an individual. This was the role most
faculty members took who participated in the
march and in the rallies. I think the professor is
more or less continuing this process of education
by example, and a lot of educational theories say
that example or participation in something is the
best way to learn. By restricting a professor,
you’re forcing him to take a view which may be
just contrary to what he’s come to teach, and
therefore, you’re reducing his effectiveness as a
teacher.

As far as a university community itself goes,
they are full-fledged citizens. I’ve made an argu¬
ment on this point in a column I wrote for the
Sagebrush 1 about whether faculty members are
to be considered full citizens or more or less slaves
on the campus. They can dispense this knowl¬
edge and do the physical work, in a sense, of the
campus and not take part in the actual life of the
campus. The university students take the role or
the position that a university is composed of the
students, and that the faculty are, for sure, as much
a part of it, and they should take as much part in
the activities of the campus as they can.

So you think they can have an influence?

They can influence, yes. I mean, that’s their
role here: to influence. They’re brought here be¬
cause they have knowledge to dispense, and I
don’t think that they should be prevented from
dispensing any of that knowledge in any way that
they can, as long as it’s a legal means. If it’s by
participating in an antiwar protest or any kind of
protest or any other activity, especially in the
university community, by all rights they should
be allowed to do this.

Where do you think the peace movemen t is headed
in this area now?

That’s a good question. For one thing, every
spring, the people who have been involved in the
peace movement kind of sit down and, you know.

look toward the next fall and say, “What’s going
to happen?” And every year, we kind of have
points in our favor in the fact that we will have
more students who have been politically oriented
in high school. They have been politically ori¬
ented just through their regular class activity
there, because high schools are much more in¬
volved in this kind of thing than they were.

When I went to high school, there was very
little political content in any of the courses. And
now, you can go into a high school civics or En¬
glish or history class in even the most small, con¬
servative towns in Nevada, and you will receive
some amount of political discussion there—so
that people will be able to come up with some
kind of political philosophy in their own mind,
and not just blindly accept it.

Besides this, there will be, for sure, a lot more
students coming from California, and for one rea¬
son: all the California schools’ enrollments were
filled four days after they opened. There’s going
to be a lot of students trying to get into Nevada.
The California students who come up here, their
level of political orientation and just social ori¬
entation really is comparable to maybe the aver¬
age junior or senior on this college campus. This
isn’t to say that they are smarter or they’re, you
know, intellectually above us. It’s just that they’ve
had more of an opportunity to become exposed
to this type of activity and this type of thought.
The fact that they’ll be stalling out as freshman
will have a lot of influence on how the peace
movement goes.

I was kind of afraid for a while that the peace
movement here on campus and across the whole
country was more or less dead, that it was killed
by people who denied peace to the peace move¬
ment. With the Cambodian situation, it appears
that it can spring up spontaneously without hav¬
ing to have any of the old institutions which kept
it going in Berkeley and down in the San Fran¬
cisco and the Los Angeles areas. But I think it
will increase; it will include more students of all
types on this university. And the results of Pro¬
fessor Adamian’s and Fred Maher’s investigation
will determine to what degree faculty will be able

JOHN R. DOHERTY

to participate. I think signs look good for the peace
movement on this campus.

What other comments do you want to make about
all of this that you’ve been so closely involved
with for so long?

1. “Are Professors
May 15, 1970.

Well, I think the main thing is that too many
people in the state are looking at the activities on
this campus as isolated from the activities on all
the other campuses that went on in the country.
This is probably for one reason: because nothing
to a large extent has ever really gone on at this
campus. We’ve got peace rallies and then
Governor’s Day rallies and moratoriums here, but
not to the extent that they have them on other
campuses. This direct confrontation with Gover¬
nor Laxalt and other high members of the state
here on Governor’s Day brought it to a new light
and a new level which hadn’t been here before,
and a lot of people in the state, I think, objected
to it.

But the purpose of the peace movement and
the rally that went on here was not to influence
the state. The fact of trying to close down the
university was not the goal of the people here. It
was not the end; it was a means. The end is to
influence President Nixon. So it was not an at¬
tack against the institutions of Nevada or the
people of Nevada. Most of the people who par¬
ticipated were Nevada citizens or residents, and
taken from their own point of view, I think, in
doing this a lot of them see it as working for the
people in Nevada. They saw it as their responsi¬
bility, and it was their attempt to use the univer¬
sity (and I don’t want to imply “use” in any kind
of negative context) as a means of achieving some
influence on President Nixon and the people who
make the policies of the war. This was our goal,
not actually closing the university. Having the
university closed is one of the last things we want,
but having the regular classrooms closed down,
and having the university open for a different
purpose: this is what we wanted.

119

Note

Slaves or Citizens?” Sagebrush,

Bruce Douglas

June 11, 1970

Now, if you ’ll say your name and your residence
and your position.

Well, I'm Bruce Douglas, and I reside in
Sparks, Nevada, and I’m an associate professor
of civil engineering.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Possibly because of my letter to the newspa¬
per regarding the activities of Paul Adamian.

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to go into Cambodia with United States
troops?

Nothing in particular. No particular' reaction.
In my view, I feel that this is an acceptable tacti¬
cal move on his part. I do feel that when it comes
July 1, he had better do what he said he was go¬
ing to do—namely, that the United States com¬
mitment in Cambodia will be through. I feel that
that is, you know, an important characteristic of
what he said he was going to do: “I’m going in

temporarily.” I’d be very concerned if we wind
up with a long-term commitment in Cambodia as
well as in Vietnam.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

I think it’s related in the sense that those
people who have been pushing for peace actively
for a long time immediately read this as another
extension of the war and possibly a long-term
commitment. I think they’re already very disen¬
chanted with the war - , and personally I am disen¬
chanted with the war. At this point, I think it is a
mistake. I felt at the outset that, yes, we could do
something in Vietnam. At this point in time, my
position is that we should get out of that war - be¬
cause of the fact that we’re not accomplishing
anything. You know, we can’t fight a war on this
basis, nor should we.

I think the Dominican Republic was an ex¬
ample of the proper exercise of power, whether
or not you agree with the exercise of power, or
whether we should or should not have done it.
We applied enough pressure to do the job and
got away from there. Now, at this point, the

122

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Bruce Douglas, 1970s.

American people are not that excited about what
happened in the Dominican Republic, and they
may have been excited at that time. But it was a
proper example of the use of power.

This particular exercise in Cambodia is a
very, very bad example of the use of power—if
you look at it from that point of view, and I choose
to. I don’t choose to look at it from the point of
view of morality. I get into fascinating arguments
on this whole business and the business of the
tremendous atrocities that we’re committing in
Southeast Asia. But I feel that if you’re going to
talk morality and atrocities, one has to look at
morality and atrocities in the total context. Don’t
tell me just about the atrocities committed by the
American Poops against the Asian nations. I’ve
got to know something about the kind of atroci¬
ties that are being committed by the North Viet¬
namese on the Cambodians and on the South Viet¬

namese and so on—if you want to play that game.
I don’t choose to.

As far as our accomplishing anything posi¬
tive, no. If we’re going to do it, we should decide
to really fight the war - to finish it militarily, which
I think at this point is just absolutely impossible.
You could not convince the American public to
do that, nor should you at this point. So the only
other thing is to set a target date for withdrawal,
in my opinion, irrespective of the consequences:
give the Vietnamese the chance to take the war
over and we get withdrawn. If they find them¬
selves incapable of defending themselves, I’d say
we’ll have to let the situation develop on its own.

What was your reaction to the events in other
parts of the country related to the Cambodia de¬
cision ?

Again, I didn’t have an immediate reaction
of any sort, particularly. It was, you know, of in¬
terest to know what was happening, but I didn’t
have any personal reaction to that.

Turning now to the Governor's Day observance
here: people will mention things like whether or
not classes should have been suspended, whether
or not the motorcade should have gone on the
campus, whether or not the Governor’s Day
should have been held at all. What did you think
of the arrangements made for observing
Governor's Day?

From the point of view of the arrangements,
I think this particular ceremony has been a long¬
standing tradition with the University of Nevada,
and I feel that those people who are inclined to
participate in that particular - ceremony should
have every right to do so. I’m not saying that ev¬
eryone necessarily should go or must go to it, but
for those who feel that this is a ceremony that
they want to attend, I feel that they have the right
to do so. And other people should allow them to
have the ceremony. I don’t feel that we should
have canceled Governor’s Day as a result of the

BRUCE DOUGLAS

123

Cambodian venture, the Kent State activities, or
whatever.

It’s hard to know whether or not allowing the
presence of the peace march on the field up there
was a good thing. I can’t make up my mind ex¬
actly whether or not it would have been a desir¬
able thing to have told the people who would have
marched, “You are not allowed up here.” I can
see some positive features to that, in the sense
that you avoid putting together two groups of
people who feel violently opposed to each other’s
points of view. On the other hand, from the op¬
posite point of view, one could see the reaction
in these people. The people who felt strongly
about the war felt that they must express them¬
selves about the war this way. I feel that they
should be able to do that. In other words, I don’t
feel that that is unacceptable. At this point in time,
I don’t personally feel it necessary for me to ex¬
press myself about the war in that way. But I feel
for those who do want to express themselves and
make their point by marching. That is an accept¬
able behavior. It’s acceptable within the confines
of our system.

So on Governor’s Day, when they walked
around the field once, shouting, “Peace now!”
and so on, they made their point. And the second
time around, I think I could have tolerated that.
Again, I wouldn’t have felt like participating, but
at least if they had terminated their activities at
that point, I think it would have been an accept¬
able thing. Not everybody would have liked it,
but it would have been acceptable because the
one performance would have been merely de¬
layed. That could have been tolerated, and they
would have been able to make their point, at least
in some fashion. And I think both sides’ rights
would have been protected.

The first two marches around the field, I
think, were a tolerable thing. Personally, I would
not have wanted to participate, because I don’t
feel that way about the war. I don’t feel it neces¬
sary to express myself that way. I felt that once
they had marched around the track twice and then
entered the stands, the people who led and orga¬
nized that march were taking a big chance. Inso¬

far as the university administration is responsible
for that, that was a bad move. I felt that the dis¬
ruption of the ceremonies by these protestors was
entirely unacceptable. They have rights, but the
ROTC students and the people there to observe
the ROTC ceremony also had rights. For the most
part, I felt that once they got into the stands their
behavior was totally unacceptable.

As it turned out, I happen to have been sit¬
ting in the stands for the Governor’s Day festivi¬
ties at the field. There was a woman and chil¬
dren—including a little baby—in the stands near
the location where I was sitting. After the peace
marchers marched into the stands, they just came
and tore down the ropes that had been used to
isolate the section in the center of the stands where
the dignitaries were to sit. They just tore those
down and marched in, and were generally dis¬
ruptive and loud the whole time. To me, this was
one type of thing which was unacceptable. Sec¬
ondly, as they filtered throughout the stands, they
were mixing with the other people, and this was
just dangerous because there were tense, nega¬
tive feelings on both sides.

I recall an incident of a lady from downtown
telling a girl to be quiet because she wanted to
hear the ceremony, and this girl just turned into a
screaming rage, just shouting at this woman,
“Peace now!” And she did this for four or five
minutes. (I mean, it was an extremely long time
as you were watching this thing.) It was literally
an uncontrollable screaming fit. One other lady
told a young man to be quiet in the stands, and he
immediately turned around and gave this lady the
finger. My reaction to this was to immediately
reply, “You’ve got real class.”

The reason I’m including this kind of thing
is the fact that there was potential for real vio¬
lence in the stands. It’s just an accident that there
wasn’t violence, and it’s an accident that there
wasn’t somebody standing up and starting a fist
fight. It could very easily have happened. If you
had a fist fight start in those stands and a brawl
started on those sloping stands, people would
have gotten trampled to death, or could very eas¬
ily have. At this point, one cannot speculate on

124

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

the ultimate conclusion of such a thing. But that
was the kind of thing that was going on. To me,
this is just not acceptable behavior.

Also, a family had lost a son in Vietnam and
created an award of several hundred dollars to be
given to an outstanding ROTC student. They were
there personally to present this award, and at this
point, I would say that most of the protestors did
attempt to quiet their ranks so that these people
would not be insulted. But one young man got
out a bugle and played taps—completely inap¬
propriate kind of behavior. If I were those people
giving this award, I would have been heartbro¬
ken over it. That kind of behavior is below the
minimum level that we can tolerate. I think that
individual should have been expelled on the spot.
If it had been me with the power to do so, I would
have done it, and then we would have then ar¬
gued about whether or not he had the right to re¬
enter campus.

There were some faculty members there who
were obviously trying to calm this thing down. It
was getting out of hand, and they did attempt to
keep the Governor’s Day activities at least in a
presentable form. And there was one faculty
member there who was doing the opposite, how¬
ever, standing up in front of them and harangu¬
ing the crowd, giving the peace sign, stamping
his feet, and shouting something I couldn’t hear.
Then he managed to get the crowd livened enough
to drown out the entire ceremonies at his example.
And I feel that this, also, is behavior that should
not be tolerated. Given the tenseness of the situ¬
ation, that has very serious implications in terms
of the actual lives of people who were attending
that thing. And I don’t feel that we should allow
that to happen. We could go on and on, but I think
we’ve probably said enough about that.

The next question leads in to what you were say¬
ing. What do you think should have been the re¬
action of the various factions involved up at the
stadium—the ROTC, the demonstrators, the uni¬
versity administration ?

I think the ROTC handled itself well in the
sense that it did not respond to a provocation with

violence. I think the people in the ROTC prob¬
ably felt like responding in a violent way, and it’s
to their credit that they did not attempt to put this
thing down—because there was a big group of
people out on the field who tried to confront the
ROTC drill team, who were marching with fixed
bayonets. There were some faculty members who
were noticeably trying to inteipose themselves
between these two factions so that there would
not be a confrontation. I think the response of the
ROTC was entirely proper: Do not reply with
violence. I think the only thing you would have
accomplished there is to have people wind up
getting hurt or killed.

I think that the police role in this thing, as it
happened, was probably the best approach: stay
out until there is a really good reason for coming
in. And good reason, in this case, would not be
the embarrassment of the governor or embarrass¬
ment of the university officials. Good reason
would be actual physical violence being exerted
by one protestor, or a group of protestors, on an¬
other group of people—in which case you’d have
no choice but to stop an actual physical combat.
Bringing the police in earlier than that time would
have triggered that sort of a response. And I think
it’s to the credit of the police and the university
that they did not bring them in. I think the uni¬
versity got out of that particular confrontation
without violence because of the way they handled
it.

Within the system, however, President Miller
got up a couple of times (I think it was twice) and
reminded the crowd that they had a chance to have
their say, so now they should let the ROTC and
the university have their ceremony. He got very
little response to that. And if I were the presi¬
dent, I would have singled out those who were
obviously responsible for this particular kind of
a demonstration, and I would have responded to
them. Maybe not on the spot at that ceremony,
but I would have responded in my office to them
the next day and let it be known, in no uncertain
terms, what I thought about that. And if I had it
in my power, I would have dismissed them. I re¬
alize that this instant dismissal is not a possible
thing in the case of tenure, and due process is a

BRUCE DOUGLAS

125

very necessary aspect of dealing with faculty
members, because as events subsequent to the
Governor’s Day show, there’s a repressive ele¬
ment in the society which would be very willing
to attack a man not for unacceptable behavior,
but because he happens to hold certain views.
That would not be the appropriate thing.

But there are some kinds of behavior which
are irresponsible, and there was irresponsible
behavior being exhibited by both students and
some faculty members at that event. Well, that
irresponsible behavior should have been re¬
sponded to in such a way to have let people know
that we do not intend to allow this to happen again.
I don’t think the man [Adamian] should be criti¬
cized for his views, however.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the fire bombings?

Oh, I think there are so many possible expla¬
nations for that. I could speculate on several of
the reasons. Well, number one, I think it’s fairly
well established that there were at least four SDS
people on campus during this time. If I were an
SDS individual and wanted to stir things up, the
cheapest thing I could think of would be to get
two cans of gasoline and, first of all, try to burn
Hartman Hall, and then a few days later retaliate
on the opposite side at the Hobbit Hole and burn
both. That would be one very logical, plausible
explanation: get everybody all stirred up.

The immediate reaction for me, of course, is
that the liberals attacked the ROTC home and
the conservatives counter-attacked on Hobbit
Hole. That’s also a possible explanation, but I
think it’s also very simplistic. It’s possible, maybe,
but it could also be that the liberals—you know,
people who are peace demonstrators—could have
burned Hartman Hall, and then could have turned
around and burnt the Hobbit Hole for the same
kind of reason. And it could have been done by
the cowboy faction or the conservative faction.
They could have fired Hartman Hall and could
have turned around and fired the other to just stir
the thing up. I mean, I think that is possible. I just
can’t speculate on the kind of reasons that would

be going through a man’s head—a reasonable
man’s head—to burn a building down. I just don’t
see how that fits into the pattern of dissent, at
least any kind of dissent that is tolerable.

What category of participant in the various af¬
fairs—the studen ts, the faculty, or ou tsiders—do
you think was most important in fomenting vio¬
lence on our campus?

Well, it’s always very easy to blame every¬
thing on the Communists, which I’m not at all
inclined to do. In this case, the Communists could
be the SDS. I don’t think that is a particularly
reasonable explanation. Some people are very
inclined to jump at this as an explanation. I feel
that that’s an easy way out. You can quit thinking
at that point, you know. It’s always the bad guy’s
fault. That’s not a way to do business. I’m not
sure violence was stimulated because SDS was
present. Their role was small. It added some to
this element that wanted to disrupt things, but I
don’t think it is a major element.

I didn’t see any of the, you know, stopping of
the governor’s car or the procession up to the field,
but I was at the field. If we call that violence, it’s
very hard to assess who is truly responsible for
that, because my reaction was that there were
some very well-intentioned people.

I know some of the people, faculty people,
who were in the march who felt strongly and feel
that they must express themselves this way. I feel
that it got out of hand, and I think they felt that it
got out of hand, and I think that most of them
tried to do what they could to turn it off. I would
estimate that there were maybe three hundred stu¬
dent protestors there and less than ten faculty
people. I'm not saying I know every faculty per¬
son that would have been in there, but I think
there would have been something like less than
ten faculty people there in the whole thing. I think
this is a situation which, for them, got out of hand.
I don’t think one can say they are to blame be¬
cause this happened.

My reaction, my feeling, my impression, in
observing them is that most of them were not
particularly committed to anything other than

126

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

raising hell. They were there just because they
were able to get away with, you know, talking
and shouting and singing and disrupting a uni¬
versity ceremony. I think some of them there were
well-intentioned, and I’ve talked to some of them
who felt strongly about the war. After I talked to
those who felt strongly about the war—they were
just as much disgusted by the behavior of these
people as the people who felt opposite to that.
So, I don’t think it was unanimous. I don’t think
that the entire group of protestors had a single
purpose in mind, namely, to disrupt. I think that
something on the order of less than half were there
raising hell. And I think other people were fairly
disgusted with it, but felt that there was no way
to turn it off. Well, I’m sure that for them, there
was really no way they could have turned it off.

I think that this is the sort of thing, however,
that you have to look at in advance—insofar as
one could predict the outcome of such a confron¬
tation between groups of people. I think it is irre¬
sponsible to say we are going to allow this con¬
frontation to happen. If the people who feel
strongly that they must demonstrate want to do
so in the presence of people who feel very strongly
in the opposite direction, then that kind of thing
somehow has got to be organized in such a way
that they make their point, and then they leave.
They do not sit there and continue to antagonize
people who feel opposite to them, because all
you’re asking for there is violence. I think all
you’re asking for there is what did happen, or
what almost happened. It certainly was, at the very
minimum, a gross embarrassment to the univer¬
sity, to the governor of the state, and to other vis¬
iting officials. We’re lucky it wasn’t more than
that, very fortunate it wasn’t more than embar¬
rassment.

For that reason, you have to weigh the judi¬
ciousness of allowing these two groups to con¬
front each other in this way. One acceptable thing
would have been to say, “OK, if you feel strongly
that you must protest in the face of ROTC, then
we, as the university officials, will allow you to
march around the field maybe twice. And then
you sign in blood that you will leave this area at

this time.” That would be one thing that would
be acceptable if you could get it to happen. Now,
if you have a group of people that you can’t con¬
trol, then you ought not to allow that confronta¬
tion to occur in the first place. In that case the
people who feel strongly should have a place on
campus to do their thing, and the people who feel
in the opposite direction should have a place on
campus to do their thing. That’s one obvious way
to keep these two groups apart.

I think university officials bear responsibili¬
ties here in the sense that they should know when
this kind of thing is going to happen, and if they
don’t know, the activity is not even allowable. It
has to be known by the university officials. And
I think for that type of confrontation, you have to
be able to insure the fact that you can do what
you say you’re going to do and leave. And if you
can’t do that, then I think that you have to say,
“Well, we’ll keep the two groups apart.” Of
course, this doesn’t always satisfy the people who
want to make the protest, because they’re pro¬
testing in a vacuum.

But on the other hand, other people have
rights. Conservatives, liberals have rights; the
voters have rights. I feel that those rights are just
as valuable and just as important as the rights of
those people who want to protest. And protest
has got to be done in a responsible way. Those
people who encourage it and lead it bear a very
large responsibility. That means they have to be
good at their job: they have to know how to handle
the people they’re going to lead. And there are
some who don’t really have a very good feel for
just what they are getting involved in.

What do you think the role of the outsiders was
in stirring up violence? Were they important?

I can only speculate. If there were four out¬
siders, they may have fomented it, but I don’t feel
it was a major contributing factor. I think these
things kind of happen. OK, there are people who
are dissatisfied; there’s no question about it.
They’re going to holler about the education
they’re getting here and holler about the way it’s

BRUCE DOUGLAS

127

being done. You know, just the minority groups
on campus are unhappy, and they’ve been un¬
happy not just because they’re on this campus,
but partly because they have had a history of be¬
ing the underdog. When you put enough of these
people together (a small group of several, or fifty
to one hundred people), I think it is possible to
get them to say, “Yes, let’s go.”

And I think there are some students and fac¬
ulty members who just feel very strongly that it’s
an evil, terrible thing that the government is do¬
ing in Vietnam. They get to where they’re so con¬
cerned about this that it clouds their judgment
about other people’s rights. It clouds their judg¬
ment about the relative importance of that feel¬
ing they have in their whole spectrum of their
immediate environment. So I think it could be
suggested that people are going to go disrupt
Governor’s Day activities, and some people, ap¬
parently, had that as an objective: “Yes, we want
total disruption of the ceremony.” As a univer¬
sity system or a society, I don’t think we can tol¬
erate that. I don’t think we want to be running
around with clubs in our hands to beat these
people down, either. I think somehow or another,
we have to be able to hear both sides. I think ev¬
eryone has to have a chance to express them¬
selves, but there has to be some way to draw a
line between the rights of the protestors and the
rights of the people that they’re protesting to. Both
sides have rights, and that’s what I feel is not be¬
ing taken into account by the people who are in¬
clined to protest violently.

What kinds of actions do you think were impor¬
tant in cooling off the situation after the fire
bombing?

Well, give the “liberals” credit for isolating
the one individual who was pretty obviously a
leader on the Governor’s Day activities. I mean,
this individual got out of hand. Other liberals in
subsequent events had a candlelight ceremony for
Kent State students, and then they had a new cer¬
emony, which I attended on the Friday after that.
I think the other liberals were very concerned

about the way the Governor’s Day events turned
out. If I were a liberal, I’d be extremely concerned.
As a matter of fact, I feel these people had the
most to lose with this sort of an expression of
their concern about the war. It discredits any re¬
sponsible liberal’s participation if one irrespon¬
sible individual happens to create a mob, if you
will, or nearly a mob.

There’s a large segment of the local popula¬
tion that feels that this is very unacceptable. They
happen to be conservative, and they’re inclined
to attack people for the views they hold. And
that’s too bad, because a man’s views is what
makes a university. The ability to think about an
issue and come to a conclusion freely, without
being constrained to come up with a conclusion
that pleases downtown, is an important charac¬
teristic of a university, and if we lose it, we are
no longer a university. So I feel that, yes, subse¬
quent to that, these people did take steps to iso¬
late within their own group those people who
would create another scene like on Governor’s
Day. They are to be commended for their efforts.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image with the people outside?
You ’ ve just touched on that.

I don’t know that many people, but as a re¬
sult of writing a letter pointing out the role of an
individual in the Governor’s Day affairs, I was
invited to a group of—if you like —very conser¬
vative concerned individuals. They would be veiy
inclined to attack people for their views. They
want a very rigid militaristic university system—
you know, “Here’s the rules, and we’ll just club
you down if you don’t do what we say,” and this
sort of thing.

But back to the question. Let’s say three or
four hundred students and faculty people are par¬
ticipating in a demonstration that maybe repre¬
sents seven or eight thousand. There may be five
percent of the whole community up here on the
hill. That five percent is what is being heard by
downtown, and it is being interpreted ah in the
wrong way. They are going to keep pushing, I

128

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

feel. I know they’ve had meetings with Procter
Hug. I think they’re going to keep pushing until
they see something happen. Again, these things
do lose steam, but I do feel that our image is be¬
ing seriously hurt.

In terms of the next legislature, it’s conceiv¬
able to me that the university’s activities and these
sorts of things are going to be a political issue. I
think it’s going to further create a foment between
north and south. I think the south is going to sit
here and try and use this as a weapon to point out
to you that, “You bad guys up at the north who
do all these nasty things . . . ,” and they’re going
to try and use this to obtain, you know, more funds
for the south. I mean, it’s very unfortunate that
we have this north-south rivalry between the two
ends of the state, as far as the universities are
concerned, but it’s there. It’s a fact. And I think it
is something which is going to play a role.

I go to professional meetings. I have a circle
of friends, and they are very willing to point out
to me what ought to be done. And what ought to
be done, in their terms, is repress it. They would
be very inclined, I think, to even get to the point
where you have a closed university, carry an I.D.
card, and if you can’t justify your presence on
campus, you must leave. It would be a tragic
turn of events for a campus.

I think that the university, in terms of being
able to keep its present freedoms, is going to draw
this line (meaning limits), and I think that line
wants to be set in such a way. The overview of
this whole type of behavior is a question of lim¬
its. We’ve got people here just raising hell—a lot
of them. I think there are other people who are
committed to a cause, but who are trying to ac¬
complish their objectives in ways which are just
really not acceptable to the majority of the people
on campus or elsewhere. I think what they have
to find out is that these things are unacceptable.
Certain kinds of ways of expressing yourself
aren’t acceptable: burning down Hartman Hall is
not an acceptable thing.

One incident that did happen up on the field
was when the students joined in as the ROTC
units were marching out. The protestors that were

remaining on the field joined in behind the ROTC
units. As they got to the stands, they marched by,
and then the people in the stands booed them, so
their peace signs turned into the finger in front of
the governor. So this kind of behavior flowed
naturally from the kind of day that was, but that
kind of behavior is unacceptable. It’s just flatly
unacceptable, in my opinion, in the presence of
the governor. That is a symbol of derision that
has been used for years, and it’s not the sort of
thing one uses in that circumstance.

Sol think there has to be some level of limits
down here with which the university says, “Here
is behavior which we consider to be intolerable.
The university isn’t saying that this is a perfect
set of rules, but it is a set of rules we will use.” It
is a set of rules that you make sure everybody is
awai'c of, including students and faculty—any¬
body that is involved in these rules. And hope¬
fully, you’ll get the faculty and students involved
in developing them. But that kind of behavior will
set that limit down here to the level where we
can be sure that people’s freedoms arc protected.
That means we’re going to have to tolerate some
behavior which, in my opinion, would be kinds
of behavior that I don’t personally care for. That’s
not the point. The point is, though, that there has
to be a limit down here. And when it is stepped
over by an individual, we have taken care of free¬
dom by setting that limit low enough. Then the
university acts, and promptly. I think this behav¬
ior of blowing trumpets and so on, that’s some¬
thing that should really result in immediate ex¬
pulsion. And do it! Quit playing around. Have
due process built into the system, of course, where
you don’t just attack people for their views or so
on. But the point is: draw a line someplace, and
then use it.

I think that’s really the name of this game
we’re playing. I think people at the administra¬
tive level, at least from my own impression, are
very un-inclined to draw a line any place. And
that’s the ball game we’re talking about. I think
we have to have this limit, and then you can ex¬
press yourself within the framework of that free¬
dom. What we’re saying is that this is the mini-

BRUCE DOUGLAS

129

mum acceptable interface of freedoms between
those who want to protest and stepping on other
people’s rights who want to get an education or
maybe not protest.

What function can the university have in focus¬
ing public opinion?

I think they stimulate public opinion. Let’s
see. how do I want to put that? A university should
be a place where people can inquire after knowl¬
edge and truth, and oftentimes truth is unpleas¬
ant to the general public. And that is too bad, if
it’s unpleasant.

I personally feel at this point that those people
who were protesting the war early in the game
were probably right, early in the game. I don’t
think I agree with their reasons. At least some of
the people that I know who protested were very
concerned about the morality aspects of it and
used this as the reason we should not do it. I don’t
look at it in that way. I look at it as more of a
foreign-relations, political arena rather than a
moral arena. But nonetheless, for whatever the
reasons, I think they were right. We made a mis¬
take there, and this vocal minority has really had
some effect on public opinion about the war (al¬
though I’m not inclined to think that it has had as
much of an effect, maybe, as some thought). Af¬
ter five years of a war of this sort, I think people
come to the conclusion it’s a waste of time, pretty
much, anyway.

But I don’t know, exactly. I’m having a hard
time answering your question. How does a uni¬
versity focus public opinion? Individuals within
the university speak out; that’s one way. But then
I think you have to be clear that it is individuals
speaking. A university should be a place where
these people who are willing to speak out can
speak out as individuals. In other words, a fac¬
ulty is people involved in studying history and
these sorts of things. If they get involved with
the nature of the war, and they feel strongly
against it—or if they don’t—people can speak
out. I feel that this should happen. And if a uni¬
versity is a place where people who feel strongly

about issues collect, and they happen to disagree
with the general public, then it’s a tolerable thing.

The only thing I quibble about is the way in
which they make their point. If they want to get
involved in the political processes, get involved
in the grassroots-level, democratic processes, and
make their opinions known—which they can
do—that’s great. But burning buildings, stopping
educational systems, burning down computers
and these sorts of things—that’s just out of the
question, not acceptable. I think the universities
better start saying that this is unacceptable:
“We’re fully inclined to let you people have your
opinions about these subjects, but there are cer¬
tain manners of behavior, modes of expression,
which are unacceptable.”

So I guess to answer the question, it would
be: A university should be a place where people
can inquire after knowledge. And if they come to
a conclusion that disagrees with current opinion,
and they speak out, that does influence public
opinion. I don’t know whether the university, as
such, should take such a position. I don’t feel it
should. I don’t think it can, because of the fact
that on a university faculty of four hundred people
you could not get a single point of view that would
be acceptable to the majority. But it should be a
place where people can freely speak their - mind
and freely inquire after knowledge.

Do you think issues of academic freedom are in¬
volved in participating in a demonstration?

They’re going to be. Well, participating in a
demonstration—demonstrations, per se, are not
an unacceptable thing. It’s the character of the
demonstration. If the demonstration involves the
destruction of property, if the demonstration in¬
volves the violation or the removal of other
people’s rights in their process, the demonstra¬
tion is unacceptable. You don’t step on people’s
rights while you’re making your point. Demon¬
strations can be loud and vocal, a sign-carrying
march. Molotov cocktails, though—when you
start doing those kinds of things, that’s no longer
a demonstration. That’s starting to be an enemy.

130

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

So it seems to me that demonstrations are an
acceptable form of expression. I think a profes¬
sor, if he feels inclined, should be able to do so.
If he feels inclined to march, I think that should
be within his rights to do so (for example, march
around the field, which some people did). When
you insult the governor, when you create a situa¬
tion which is potentially dangerous to the lives
of all sides concerned, that is no longer an ac¬
ceptable form of demonstration, and that’s not
academic freedom.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally? Or should they try to influence govern¬
mental opinion or governmental policies?

Well, insofar as faculty and students are citi¬
zens of the United States, they certainly should. I
mean, that’s just something I personally don’t do
enough of. But I think as concerned individuals,
and maybe even as a concerned group of people,
they should try and influence the political pro¬
cess.

But you know, the name of the game is to get
power. If you’re going to have influence, you’ve
got to get power. Now, you got to figure out how
you’re going to get that. You’re not going to get
power by antagonizing the majority of the popu¬
lation.

If you go to the committee meetings, you see
that this is a thing that can be done. I know of
some people on campus concerned about peace
who have done this, and I think that is probably
effective. I don’t know any other way to do it.
The only thing I can think of is if you’re really
going to change things, you have to get power.
And to my own thinking, you’re not going to
change things just by burning the system down—
all you’re going to get is repression. As a result
of the recent university activities, I think that’s
the most likely outcome. I think there will be re¬
pressive moves made from a financial point of
view towards this university.

The idea of having a code of conduct devel¬
oped and adopted by the Board of Regents, as an
interim code prior to the university faculty being

involved, is the sort of thing that is going to be
complained about by a lot of people. After read¬
ing the code that’s being proposed, I think it is
going to be a reasonable sort of thing in general.
But if the situation had gotten worse, the chances
are that code of conduct might not have been as
fair. I think that is an example of the kind of thing
that can happen. And it is mildly dangerous to
have that happen from the outside. There arc other
people who are going to say that that is just com¬
pletely unacceptable, but I do feel that this line is
necessary.

Where do you think the peace movement is headed
in this area?

The local area? I’m not that familiar with the
peace movement. I don’t really think I can com¬
ment on that. I just don’t know enough about it.

What other comments do you want to make about
this whole situation?

In terms of the campuses, the main point, the
overall issue here, is the question of the
university’s setting fair limits of behavior and
emphasizing this notion of fairness. I also em¬
phasize the idea that when you set these limits,
they should be set low enough such that there’s
ample room for freedom of expression—for ex¬
tremes on both sides (the people who are radical
on either side of the political spectrum). There
are going to be modes of expression which are
not really to either side’s taste. Well, that’s tough.
The point we’re saying, though, is that those lim¬
its should be set such that when people grossly
violate other people’s rights—or violate the
taxpayer’s rights in the sense of burning build¬
ings down—that these kinds of behaviors are not
allowable.

I think this is like a little kid. You know, these
little kids are not happy until a parent sets a limit
for them on their behavior. They’re comfortable,
they’re secure, they know how to respond, and
they know what to expect. And I think that’s re¬
ally what the problem is. I don’t think they really

BRUCE DOUGLAS

131

know what to expect out of the university in terms
of what the hell is acceptable in their behavior,
because they can do anything. And so far, there’s
been a very wide range of behavior—some of
which I think is really unacceptable—and noth¬
ing happens. Or if anything does happen, they
try and make it happen a year and a half later.

Take the case of the [Jesse] Sattwhite trial,
in which after a year and a half, I think it’s just
academic. There’s no point in doing anything. I’m
not commenting here on the relative merits of the
Sattwhite case, but it’s just an example of a case
where the university did proffer charges, and there
was a year and a half after the series of offenses.
Well, I think at that point, a year and a half later,
it’s just a little late. I think the university has to
have a mechanism of responding more or less
timely to this kind of thing.

I feel this way, also, because of the same thing
in terms of handling students in class. I think that,
you know, the other side of the coin is to set the
limits of behavior: in the sense of, “Here’s how
your grade is made up. Here’s what I expect in
terms of the homework. Here’s what I expect in
terms of attendance or non-attendance.” You lay
these things out at the beginning, then a student
knows what they expect from you as an instruc¬
tor, and he can interface well with you. He knows
more or less how you’re going to operate, in
which case he knows how to handle himself. It
works in the classroom, and I don’t really see why
it wouldn’t work in terms of the university as a
whole. But you do have to be willing to follow
through. That’s the problem. It does mean that
when the limits are exceeded, you have to act.
And this is where I think the university adminis¬
tration has to get busy. They have to set the lim¬
its fairly, and then when they test them, you don’t
keep pushing it under the rug. You act.

Larry Dwyer

June 5, 1970

Now, for the record, if you ’ll just say your name
and your residence and your class and major.

Yes. I'm Larry Dwyer, living in Reno. And
my major officially is political science, but I pre¬
fer to think of it as environmental studies. And
my class, I don’t know, [laughter]

[laughter] Why do you think you were chosen to
be interviewed?

I don’t know, and I don’t really think that
this is a fair question, so I prefer not to answer
that.

OK. What was your reaction to President Nixon’s
decision to go into Cambodia ?

Well, at first I was rather surprised at his
decision because of the current antiwar feeling,
or at least there seems to be antiwar feeling go¬
ing on in the country. When he did decide to go
in, I felt that this is really a slap in the face to a
lot that had been going on. Well, a lot of people
had been working on the problems and felt that

this is really going too far. But I wasn’t all that
surprised, because of, well, things that Nixon has
done.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

Well, relating back to what I said a little while
ago, a lot of people felt that this was a slap in the
face, and so they felt that they had to show their
disapproval by such things as demonstrating and
the student strike and such.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodia decision?

Well, referring specifically to the Kent State
“incident,” I guess you can call it, I wasn’t terri¬
bly surprised. I was very sad that this had to hap¬
pen, but it seems that there are two factions that
have been becoming more and more polarized—
the extremes on both the left and the right—that
something like this was more or less inevitable. I
think that if we can communicate a little more,
that possibly we can avoid things like this in the
future.

134

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Yes. Turning now to the Governor’s Day activi¬
ties here, what did you think of the arrangements
made for the observance of Governor’s Day?

Oh, I really thought that this was very poorly
planned, to take place the day after the Kent State
incident and within a few days of the president’s
decision to go into Cambodia. I felt that the
Governor’s Day activities should either have been
canceled, postponed, or at least modified in such
a way that they didn’t really try to show the mili¬
tary superiority of our country. And because of
this, there was the decision to have a counter¬
demonstration by several of the students here. I
think the whole thing could have been handled a
lot better if people had been able to foresee some
of the things that would come of it.

Yes. What was your reaction to the demonstra¬
tion ?

Well, I took part in the counter-demonstra¬
tion to the Governor’s Day activities, and I don’t
know that this was really very effective. I think
that it did make a lot of the people in the com¬
munity aware that there was unrest, which is
probably very important. But I think it also helped
to polarize a lot of people against the students,
which I think is unfortunate.

Did you feel it was necessary to participate in
the demonstration?

Well, I don’t know that you would .... I
think that that question is poorly phrased.

It probably is.

But I did take part in the demonstration, and
I felt that I had to show my disapproval in some
way. And whether this was the best way to show
my disapproval or not will remain to be seen,
[laughter] but I did take part.

What did you think was the most effective part
of first, the demonstration, and then, the obser¬
vance of Governor’s Day?

I don’t think that any part of it was really
very effective, outside of showing that there was
discontent, that there were two sides to the is¬
sue, so to speak. I think that probably the best
thing that came out of it was some of the discus¬
sions that took place afterwards. On Friday of
the week that Governor’s Day took place, there
was a student strike, or at least an attempted stu¬
dent strike, and the afternoon of that same day,
there were two or three discussion groups be¬
tween people taking part in the strike and also
the ones that were violently opposed to the strike.
I say “violently opposed,” because they were talk¬
ing about getting ready to go out and shoot
people, which disturbed me quite a bit, because I
feel the only way we can get anything accom¬
plished is through strict non-violence.

But that afternoon, we did manage to get
together and talk over some of these things, and
it turned out that we really weren’t as far apart as
a lot of people had thought in the first place. And
if we can continue communicating, then I think
a lot of the problems can be worked out.
Unfortunately, the most effective type of
communication is on the individual level, and I
don’t really think that we have time to continue
communicating on the individual level, because
you have to reach the masses of people in order
to get any change to come about.

Yes. What do you think should have been the re¬
action of the ROTC and the demonstrators and
the university administration to what developed
at the stadium on Governor’s Day?

Well, this I can answer as a personal opinion
only. I don’t know what recourse they had open
to them, but I feel—I said it earlier—that they
should have either postponed or canceled the
Governor’s Day activities in view of the current
situation. Whether this would have been possible
through the bureaucratic process, [laughter] I
don’t know. Or if they could have modified it in
such a way that turned this into a dialogue-type
situation, where they had someone get up and
talk about why they were going through the cer¬
emony and then let someone from the other side

LARRY DWYER

135

say why they should not go through with the cer¬
emony. This might have been more effective. But
whether something like this would have been
possible or not. I really don’t know.

Yes. What about the ROTC and the demonstra¬
tors? What should have been their reaction? You
have mentioned what the administration prob¬
ably should have done.

Oh, well, as far as the demonstrators were
concerned, I don’t think that they were well
enough organized to do anything else than what
they did, which was more or less to try and dis¬
rupt the whole process, and, by disrupting it,
showing their discontent with the military author¬
ity, or however you prefer to look at it. And
whether they could have been more effective or
not, I don’t know, but it seems that they did get
their point across that they were unhappy.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day?

I wasn’t surprised. I was a little disheartened
to see it taking place. I was hoping that maybe
we could be different than other places, but that’s
probably being a little too idealistic. Seems that
the violence usually erupts when people are po¬
larized into two or more different factions and
don’t communicate. At least, my personal opin¬
ion is that people are more or less forced into a
situation where they have not been able to com¬
municate and the only recourse is to violence.

I don’t think that the violence that took place
here—such as the bombings at the ROTC
building and the Hobbit Hole—I don’t think they
were as a result of student activities. I feel that
this could have been either extreme radicals from
either the right or the left. I am concerned that
both bombings could have been done by the same
people, which would have the effect of polarizing
the two . . . well, whatever you want to call them,
factions even more. And this is something that
we’re going to have to be aware of, that this is
taking place, and see if we can’t avoid this type
of situation in the future.

Yes. What category of participant in the various
affairs—the students, the faculty, or outsiders —
do you feel was most effective in fomen ting vio¬
lence on our campus?

I think they all were equally effective in fo¬
menting violence because of not being aware of
why violence takes place. Well, my personal
opinion is that violence erupts when you fail to
communicate. If this were taken into consider¬
ation by all factions, then I feel that this could
have been avoided, if we had been able to get
together and communicate—the students, fac¬
ulty—both the liberals, conservatives, and all
concerned.

Yes. Were the outsiders important?

I don’t really think so. I know that there were
a few so-called “outsiders” on campus; I spoke
to several of them myself. And they were prima¬
rily interested in getting something started, they
said. Now, what they meant by this. I’m not too
certain. I feel that they wished to see violence of
some sort take place because this would help to
bring publicity to their cause, which may or may
not be valuable. But I don’t really think that they
were effective in getting anything stalled, because
there were enough people that realized what they
were trying to do and did not let something like
this take place.

Yes. What actions do you feel were most impor¬
tant in preventing more violence?

Well, primarily communication between the
different factions—the conservatives and liber¬
als. I think, as I stated earlier, communication is
always important in coming up with solutions to
any problems. I mean, if you want to extrapolate
this one step further, you can look at the world¬
wide situation and say that if we could commu¬
nicate between, well, the communist countries
and the capitalist countries, if they could com¬
municate better, then there’d probably be less
need for an arms race, so to speak, and probably
eliminate the possibility . . . well, I shouldn’t say

136

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

eliminate, but at least reduce the possibility of
open warfare.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image with outsiders? “Image” is a
bad word, [laughter]

[laughter] This is true. But I think there are
lots of factions of outsiders. First one I think I’ll
talk about is the business community in Reno,
and I think that this is, in general, a fairly con¬
servative group of people. Probably an under¬
statement, but anyway, I think that they, for the
most part, took a rather dim view of the students’
activities—the strike and such. And I’ve heard
various people say that the university ought to
be closed down until they get rid of all these agi¬
tators and everybody else. Kind of bothers me,
because I think I’d probably be one of the first to
go under such circumstances, [laughter] But I
don’t really think that they’re looking at the whole
situation. They have a very narrow view of what’s
going on: they’ve made up their minds and are
not willing—at least it seems to me that they’re
not willing—to look at the viewpoint of some
of, for lack of a better term, the more liberal stu¬
dents. As long as they see violence erupting, re¬
gardless of where it comes from, they’re going
to say, “Well, this is all because of the people
who are frying to change things.” And it seems
to me that change has always been accompanied
by a great resistance to that change throughout
history. I think this is what is taking place right
now, especially in this community. I’ve lived most
of my life in California. It seems that Reno is
considerably more conservative than where I
came from. But they are pretty well satisfied with
the way things are going and just don’t want to
change, because they feel that this could conceiv¬
ably be a threat to their security (referring to se¬
curity in the overall sense of the word, not finan¬
cial security or anything like that, but general
peace of mind).

Yes. Did you want to say anything more about
other categories? You said you were going to

speak first about the business community and how
they felt.

Oh, yes. Well, then you could go on a step
further and talk about the country in general. I
think that this would just be viewed as one other
problem, one other campus that has students that
are concerned about the way things are going in
the world. And hopefully that, in conjunction
with other campuses, will eventually bring about
some positive changes. Whether this will hap¬
pen or not or whether the so-called “conserva¬
tive” factions will win out is something that re¬
mains to be seen. But I think that possibly, if some
of the students can get together and work on po¬
litical campaigns this November, we might stand
a good chance of getting somewhere.

On the other hand, this conservative back¬
lash .... I really don’t like these terms, but we’re
stuck with the English language, [laughter] I have
to use them. But I feel that the so-called “conser¬
vative backlash” may end up being a very strong
factor in the November elections. And if it’s
strong enough, they could end up electing the
overwhelming majority in the House of Repre¬
sentatives and also in the Senate, which I think
would probably mean more and more violence
and could eventually end up in open revolution,
which I think would be disastrous to mankind. I
feel it would be disastrous to mankind, because
any type of disruption of this sort would have
consequences that we probably want to be able
to recover from because, primarily, of our highly
mechanized society. We are so dependent on vari¬
ous resources, such as petroleum and electricity,
that if these were to be disrupted, it would be
very difficult, once these things were restored—
if they were restored—to pick up and cany on
without the effects of mass starvation in the large
cities. And with mass starvation, you have all
kinds of other problems which probably end up
in a total anarchy, which would, of course, be
very dangerous, to say the least, [laughter]

Yes. What function can a university have in fo¬
cusing public opinion?

LARRY DWYER

137

I think I would answer yes to this question,
[laughter] University definitely has a function in
focusing public opinion. I have always looked at
the universities as being the one place where
people are currently thinking about all sorts of
problems and have the necessary tools to deal
effectively on the intellectual level with various
problems. And through the universities, we will
be able to develop solutions and such. If we can
implement these solutions, then .... Well, let’s
see, getting a little far beyond here from what I
really want to say. [laughter] But if we can get
people in the universities to communicate with
people outside the university and get the general
community to look towards the universities for
various solutions, as well as towards government
agencies and big business, then I think that the
university will definitely play an important part.
It’s maybe a third factor, the government and
business being the two other factors in focusing
public opinion. I don’t really think I stated that
very well, but . . . .[laughter]

Well, actually, it’s just having to do with what
our university ought to be doing to perhaps
change an unfavorable situation at the moment.

Right. Yes. I think that we can help to change
an unfavorable situation. Well, one, through the
students working on political campaigns. This is
probably the most important. The president can
also get involved in various organizations that
are involved in various problems, such as the
environmental problems or several organizations
that are .... [laughter] Seem to be more of them
springing up every day that are concerned with
separate problems and also the problems of war
in southeast Asia, along with various other so¬
cial problems, such as racial injustice, poverty,
and the problem of the Indians.

I feel that these are all tied up together. And
the basis of it all is an attitude towards life, that
we can change our basic outlooks, [laughter]
Instead of trying to set ourselves as individuals
and as groups apart from other individuals and
other groups and apart from nature and such, we

can realize that we’re all part of the same planet,
the same ecosystem, and that we have to deal
with each other. As long as we have to deal with
each other, we may as well do this on a level
where we can more or less avoid conflict. Well, I
should say disastrous conflict. Conflict is
inevitable, and slight conflict, I think, is really a
positive force in coming up with solutions. But
when conflict gets to the point where you stop
communicating, then you run into problems.

Yes. Do you think that issues of academic free¬
dom are involved in participating in demonstra¬
tions?

Oh, definitely. Academic freedom, the way I
look at it, is the freedom to express one’s own
opinions. Well, it’s hard to really express your
opinions unless you’re listened to. It’s great to
go off in a corner and spout off to the four walls
what you think ought to be done, but unless some¬
one is going to listen, then it becomes really use¬
less.

As far as taking part in demonstrations, be¬
ing a part of this, I think that this is a way of
focusing public opinion on specific problems and
getting people to listen. Because I feel that a lot
of people are willing to go along, and they may
not realize that there is a problem, and they don’t
really want to be told that there is a problem.
And so I think this is paid of the problem of con¬
flict between various factions, that some feel that
there is a problem, and others feel that there is
no problem and don’t seem to be willing to be
told that there is a problem. But through demon¬
strations, I think the people that don’t feel that
there is a problem are at least made aware that
others feel there is a problem. Through this
mechanism, it might end up with better commu¬
nication. Then again, as I stated earlier, this might
tend to turn more people against the ones that
feel that there is a problem, which would prob¬
ably be dangerous, also.

You have mentioned a number of times about the
effectiveness of political action. The next ques-

138

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

tion is: How can students and faculty be effec¬
tive politically? And should they try to influence
governmental policy?

Well, I think that students and faculty should
definitely try to get involved, because I feel that
a lot of people are willing to look up to univer¬
sity people as being people that have thought
about various problems and maybe have done a
little more research than, oh, say, the average
middle-class American, which is a bad term to
use. But I feel that there is this large majority of
people in this country that would fit within a
broad category as such. And I think a very effec¬
tive way is working on political campaigns, find¬
ing candidates that are willing to support vari¬
ous views. Specifically, I feel that the war in
southeast Asia should be brought to an end, and
if we can find candidates who are willing to work
towaixls ending this war, then they should have
the support of anyone—not just university
people, but anyone in the community—that feels
the same way. And not just passive support, but
definitely active support: that is, going out and
ringing doorbells. And here, the students can be
very effective, because I think for the most part,
people are willing to listen to students who have
kept themselves informed on various issues and
can answer questions that a lot of people have
regarding the various issues. So, by going out
and ringing doorbells and such, the students can
really be very effective.

Yes. Where is the peace movement headed in this
area ?

Who knows? [laughter] I would like to think
that the peace movement is just getting started
and that it will continue to grow from the few
things that have taken place on the campus. Like
last fall, there was the Vietnam moratorium com¬
mittee that was relatively active, and then re¬
cently, the student strike. I guess, there was a
committee of sorts that was involved in that. And
I hope that things like this can be continued and
become more and more effective in the future.
Whether the community will react against such

things is something that I think we’re going to
have to take into consideration and try and modify
our efforts, so that they will be more effective in
promoting communication, other than stopping
communication. And next fall, hopefully, things
will get stalled again, and we’ll continue from
where we’ve left off. I don’t think much will hap¬
pen during the summer, because the students tend
to take off, get summer jobs and such, and they’re
not united on campus like they are during the
school year.

Yes. What other comments do you want to make ?

Well, I’m still not too certain about the value
of such a project, and I hope that someday, a
project such as the oral history project will be
valuable. I did talk to Dr. Hulse this morning,
and I don’t think .... [laughter] I’m probably
not asking the right questions, is what it amounts
to, to find out what I really want to know. But I
hope that we can get together and concentrate
our efforts on some of the environmental prob¬
lems, the social problems that we’re faced with,
that assure that we do have a future so that such
a project as this could be at least of some value.

Dennis Flynn

June 3, 1970

Just to start this off now, if you ’cl give your name
and hometown and your class in school and ma¬
jor and so forth.

OK. My name is Dennis Flynn, and I’m from
California. I’m a P.E. major, graduated in Janu¬
ary. And that’s about it for that.

Why do you think you were chosen, then, to be
interviewed?

I wasn’t exactly sure, but I think that who¬
ever made up this list probably thought that I had
some pretty definite ideas on subjects one way
or the other, and probably knew I was halfway
involved in some of the activities. I do care about
what’s happening around this university, so that’s
probably one reason why I was selected to be in¬
terviewed.

What was your own reaction to President Nixon’s
decision to move troops into Cambodia ?

At first, I was quite concerned, because I’m
not really behind the war at all, but I am con¬

cerned about what’s going to happen. So I was
concerned about why we were going into Cam¬
bodia, and I was sort of shocked at first, because
I didn’t want any further involvement. I felt that
we should be getting out as soon as possible, but
I’m still not one that thinks that the only solution
is to pack up our bags and leave. I don’t think
that’s fair to our country or to the people that have
already been over there, the ones that have al¬
ready been involved, the ones who have already
died.

What way do you think that this Cambodian de¬
cision was related to the things that happened
next on this campus?

Well, it seemed like it set the fuse or some¬
thing. I knew things had been building up around
this campus, and it seemed like there had been
sort of a lull in the way things had been fairly
quiet. I think it was something that a lot of people
might have been waiting for, waiting for some¬
thing that they could really say, “Well, here—it
happened. Now what are we going to do?”

And that’s why I don’t agree with this at all.
I can’t see why you have to wait for something to
happen that really seems like a gross mis-action

140

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

or something, in order to start making yourselves
really heard. I don’t think you have to wait until
something happens distinctly in order to act. I
think a lot more could have been done in the
month before. It was just going at it in a steady
pace and trying to solve these problems or trying
to find definite solutions. But I don’t believe that
just one incident can justify the actions of vio¬
lence and everything else.

Well, what was your reaction to the things that
happened in the other parts of the country, like
at Kent State and at Jackson, Mississippi, too —
campus incidents?

Well, those campuses’ incidents, I feel, were
real tragedies, things that should have never hap¬
pened. I can’t blame any one faction for even the
lost lives at Kent State, since I’ve been in the
national guard for three years, and at different
times, I’ve come in and had this riot control. I’ve
been involved in some sort of extent of it, and I
can’t condemn the national guard for their ac¬
tions at all. I know in our national guard unit,
probably at least 50 percent have either gone
through college or are attending college right at
this time, you know. And I’m sure that probably
some of those people that were involved in the
incident at the Kent State campus, as far as na¬
tional guardsmen, probably were going to school
there at the time.

The way I feel, I don’t think this incident
should have ever really happened. What I feel
really bad about is that they probably say, “Well,
innocent people were killed.” Well, that’s just like
any war. It’s the innocent ones that seem to suf¬
fer most of the time. I can’t see where a lot of
these campus radicals just took this as condemn¬
ing the national guard, the president, and the coun¬
try on the whole, and then they turn around and
use violence. So they condemned violence, but
then they wanted to make it look like their use of
violence was all right just because it had already
happened. And I don’t like any campus violence
at all. I don’t think it has any place on campus.

Well, now, regarding these Governor’s Day ac¬
tivities here on campus, what do you think of the
arrangements for the observances? Actually, the
observances have happened every year for the
last several years, but it happened right after the
Cambodian thing.

I think that protest is all right. I mean, it has
its place. But as far as this Governor’s Day deal,
I think that it was completely in bad taste, be¬
cause it’s just like they’re protesting against some¬
thing—which is fine—but still, these people that
are involved in it have their rights, too.

That’s what I meant to ask first. What did you
think of the arrangements for Governor's Day as
such? And then the next one would be: What
would your reactions be to the demonstrations
against it? So you can talk to both sides, if you
wish, [laughter]

OK. [laughter] Well, I feel that there is a need
for an ROTC program. I mean, there’s always
going to be a need for some sort of standing army,
and there’s always going to be people that are
going to find their life in the military.

We need to have well-trained officers in our
military, and there’s no better place than on a
college campus. If we have our most intelligent,
or part of our most intelligent, people in the mili¬
tary, then maybe some of these actions and atroci¬
ties that sometimes do happen, won’t happen—
if a person has a well-rounded background and
has gone through the college life. I don’t think
they’re apt to get involved in some of these war¬
time atrocities and even just different war-time
or military operations.

I myself was quite mad. I wasn’t there; I was
working at the time. And just as I say that vio¬
lence isn’t a good thing, I think if I would have
been there, I would have been quite upset. I would
probably have attempted to do something about
it.

About what? The demonstration?

DENNIS FLYNN

141

About the demonstration itself.

Now, they could have stayed outside and car¬
ried their flags, with their bands and their say¬
ings, and done anything they want. But when they
come in and try to disrupt any kind of activity, I
think it’s wrong, especially when the parents of
this Jim Woodsman, who was killed in Vietnam,
were there. How did they feel, you know? I mean,
they lost their son, you know, and he did what he
thought was right. Now, as far as if these people
are doing what they think is right, these other
people have no business at all trying to disrupt it:
catcalls, whistles, yells and screams, marching
around, and trying to just make a complete mock¬
ery of the thing.

Well, and you say you were working. You didn’t
participate. You weren’t up there?

No, I wasn’t.

You didn’t see it. Weil, I can’t ask you the next
one, then, [laughter] Well, I can ask you this:
What should have been the reaction of, say, the
ROTC boys to the conflict that developed? Or do
you know what the reaction was?

Well, I know pretty much. I think, very eas¬
ily, they could have just completely erupted, them¬
selves. I think they, well, showed quite a bit of
what they’re made of and everything, quite a bit
of the discipline they’ve been through by just
pretty well taking and keeping their heads.

When I heard about it, I was hoping that they
would have just ripped into them, because I don’t
have too much use for that kind of people any¬
way. I mean, if they want to act that way, I think
they ought to take the consequences. That’s one
thing I feel about this school, that there’s more of
a conservative element in this school and in this
state, too, mostly because it’s sort of isolated, in
a way. Where I came from, there would have been
an hour drive between junior colleges to univer¬
sities, and universities are probably thirty schools
in all. And there’s not as many people at these
schools that would stand up and actually fight

against a protest. Some might, if they thought it
was wrong.

In this school, I think that there is a large
enough element of people that are concerned
enough about different actions of protest groups
that actually can stand up and be heard against
them.

OK. Weil, what was your reaction, then, to the
violence that broke out, like the bombing of the
ROTC building and the bombing of Hobbit Hole?
What was your reaction to this?

Well, I was quite worried at the time, espe¬
cially at the first incident of the bombing of the
ROTC building, because I thought it could get
out of hand. I’ve been around places and have
heard of places where complete violence has bro¬
ken out just by a rock being thrown through a
window. And I wasn’t pleased to see the Hobbit
Hole bombed either. I think somebody could have
been killed. It’s just uncalled for.

Did you see any relation to these things, or were
they just unrelated incidents?

I think there is a definite relation. I really
don’t think that it was a retaliation deal. I think it
could have been outside groups, or if not outside
groups, just a group that is just dead set on bring¬
ing violence to this campus. And I’m not sure,
but it’s more my feeling that there was more
chance of probably the same group doing both
things.

Well, that’s interesting, because the next ques¬
tion I was going to ask you was which category
of participant—whether student, faculty or out¬
sider—did you feel was most effective in foment¬
ing this violence that broke out suddenly? Do you
think outsiders were important?

I think outsiders were. In one of these dis¬
cussions on the day they had the moratorium up
in the ag building, one of the—call them a radi¬
cal or one of the protesting element—said that,

142

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

yes, there were outsiders up here this weekend,
which everybody knew, because they let it out to
be known that there were going to be outsiders.
(Schools in California had been let out for the
rest of the week at that time.)

So, he made the statement that, yes, there
were outsiders, and there was a statement brought
up that said, “Well, why do we need outsiders on
this campus?”

And then, of course, one of the other guys
said that, well, he just told these outsiders to “be
out of here by midnight tonight,” or else they’re
going to get their ass kicked.

I more feel on this line. I really think that
there’s no need for them, and I don’t think they
belong to this campus. They’re not going to help
this campus; they want just to fall in line with the
rest of the campus and try to disrupt the whole
university life. I don’t think there’s any need for
this, at all. I feel that, especially if we’re con¬
cerned, there’s a lot that can be done about dif¬
ferent things such as the war. And these are more
national things, but still, I think a great deal of
the problem around this campus is what we can
do about our campus itself and the problems on
our campus.

Now, on the other side, what actions do you feel
were most effective in preventing more violence,
or in cooling off this situation that developed right
after the bombings?

Well, in some of the discussions that devel¬
oped—the meetings, getting together—there was
a lot of yelling back and forth. That’s why I’m
more concerned about the outsiders and the vio¬
lence, because there’s just a small element of
people that really are striving for violence, and I
really think that that’s what they want. And I think
the majority of people up here at this university
don’t. There’s not that many in this campus, I
think, that will get behind violence. One of the
reasons is because if one group does start a vio¬
lent movement or something, if it came to real
violence, there is this other element on the cam¬
pus that would retaliate. And that’s just because

they like their school, they like the way it is, and
they don’t want one group of people trying to
ruin it. They’re willing, and they will stand up
for their rights—or what they think are their
rights.

I see. OK. How do you think that events on cam¬
pus affect the university’s image with outsiders?
And that could be townspeople or people in other
states, or whatever.

Well, I don’t really know how much. As far
as outside the state, I don’t really know, because
I don’t think Nevada has too much of an image,
at all. At least, I don’t think it’s known that much;
it’s just too small, you know. Because when I was
in California, before I came to school, I didn’t
know there was a university in Reno, and I know
a lot of people that really don’t either.

As far as people in this area, I think their
image of the university and what they think is
going on at the university has changed quite a bit
in the last couple of weeks, say, in the last month
and a half. As far as the community and every¬
thing, I think the image is quite changing, and it
had quite an effect on the people. It seemed quite
evident when different politicians around the area
came out with different statements—and they still
are. I think it’s even going to be an issue in this
election as far as what should be done in this area.

Do you feel that the university has a function in
focusing public opinion — say, on the war prob¬
lem, the problem with blacks in school, or on any
problem ? Do you think that this is one ofthejunc-
tions of the university?

Well, I’m not sure if it’s a function of the
university itself, but it is a function of student
choice. Quite a few of them do belong to a voting
class, and there’s the way that more and more
young people have a say in the government.

You started to mention the students now who are
voting age, so that leads into this: How can stu-

DENNIS FLYNN

143

dents be effective politically? Should they attempt
to influence political or government policies?

I definitely think they ought to, but how can
they best do this? Demonstrate or run for office?
Work within the system? What? I think it has to
be a combination. I mean, protest does bring cer¬
tain things to light. It shows unrest that people
have. It brings out opinions. It brings out feel¬
ings.

But as far as a violent protest, it just doesn’t
have a place. I don’t think it does any good. I
think it does more harm to the feelings of young
people, because people will stand up and listen
to you, but people will react against violence. And
they say, “Well, they might have good ideas, but
who gives them the right to go out and burn down
buildings?” So they figure that if we get more
behind them, get more liberal, maybe we’re just
asking ourselves for more trouble. Because the
young people are still a minority, and in the vot¬
ing, it’s going to be hard enough to be heard as it
is. The young people are being heard, but how
much their vote counts right now still hasn’t re¬
ally been figured out. I think it hurts their cause
quite a bit—the violent stuff.

Working within the established system—
you’re going to have to do that to a certain ex¬
tent, because that’s the only way that your politi¬
cians are elected right now. I mean, they’re go¬
ing to have to run along their lines. They’re go¬
ing to have to use their own tactics. But if they
want to be heard, I think that they’re going to
have to do it in the right way—maybe even in
groups, even if it is another party or something.
If they get behind it and set up the right platforms
and, well, go out and present a credible campaign,
I think they are going to be heard, and it’s going
to start showing.

It’s just like everything else. It can’t be done
right away, and people just think too idealisti¬
cally. They think that, “Well, we’ve been waiting
to get heard. This has to be done right now”—
whether it’s civil rights, whether it’s getting out
of the war, or whether it’s anything. It just isn’t
realistic to think that this can be done right now.

I feel. It’s going to take time, and it’s going to
take a lot of work.

And you ’re kind of more in favor of working
within the system than trying to overthrow things?
[laughter]

True.

Yes, and this question of academic freedom has
come up. Do you feel that the issues of academic
freedom are involved in participation in demon¬
strations?

Well, it seems to me that there is quite a bit
of academic freedom there and other issues that
seem to be going along quite a bit together. It
seems like there are quite a lot of groups. The
protesting group is the group that is pushing aca¬
demic freedom and everything. I don’t know. It
just seems to me that it’s getting to be too much
where it’s one sided. You’re either one side or
the other.

I don’t think this is really good, because it
seems to me like you’re getting involved where
if you’re on the one side for one thing, and if
there’s another issue, you’re going to have to stay
on that side. And maybe a lot of people feel that
they’re justified in doing that, but I myself would
rather feel that I have the freedom to make a
choice on every issue.

I don't know whether this is meant for the student’s
academic freedom or for faculty’s, but do you
think that being involved in a demonstration is
outside the realm of what they call academic free¬
dom for a university teacher? Or do you think
it’s within the bounds of it?

Well, I’m not exactly sure. I don’t think I can
really justify myself in really taking a position at
all, because I’ve seen some things that some pro¬
fessors have done which may be classified as
something that’s their academic freedom or some¬
thing, but that I’d just condemn. And other things,
I really can’t....

144

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, I’ll kind of drop that one, then. I don’t know
how familiar you are with this group that calls
itself the Peace Movement. Do you see it headed
anywhere in this particular area? Do they have
a goal that you can see? Are they working for a
goal?

Well, I think that their goal is an ending of
the war, but I think for anyone in their right mind,
that’s their goal, too. Now, I think they’re defi¬
nitely doing more than the average person, but
like I said before, I just think they’re too idealis¬
tic. They want the immediate ending of the war,
and it’s just an impossible task.

I’m sure even President Nixon wants to end
the war right today. I’m sure he’d be more than
willing if it was at all possible to say, “All right,
all American troops come on home.” I mean, any¬
body that says anything different, I really couldn’t
agree with.

Joel M. Gartenberg

June 2, 1970

Now, just for the record, if you ’ll say your name
and your residence and your class.

Joel Gartenberg, 3175 Bryan here in Reno,
not any actual class. I'm just doing some part-
time graduate work.

In what field?

It was management, but I'm going to drop it.
I’m not particularly interested in management.
Next semester I’ll take some background
courses—language or psychology, sociology,
something to that effect—but I'm not working
toward a master’s degree anymore, not on a part-
time basis.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Well, for the reasons you stated—because
you wanted to get a broad background, or people
from various sides of the spectrum, I guess you'd
say, within the university.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia ?

At first, my reaction was somewhat reserved
until I thought about it for a few days and saw
what the reaction of some other people was, and
also till I did a little bit of investigative work on
my own part. And then, the more I thought about
it, the wiser move I thought it was, primarily be¬
cause, tactically, it’s the best thing they could
have done. Should have been done a long time
ago. Unfortunate that it wasn’t.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

Well, it probably acted as a catalyst, some¬
thing that many of the students were looking for
to react to, just something to spark the fire, so to
speak. Generally, I tend to think that many of
them are followers and there are very few lead¬
ers in the group. And they like to belong to a
cause—to identify, I guess would be the right
word to use—and this was a means to do it. The
fact that the president decided to go into Cambo¬
dia just acted as a catalyst.

146

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country that were related to the Cambodia
decision ?

Well, I was pretty much disgusted with much
of it, that students could do so much and get away
with it. They’re complaining about not only the
lives lost, but the amount of money being spent
in Cambodia and Vietnam, and then they run
around destroying their own campuses, which is
pure stupidity to me. I think that there are other
ways they could probably make themselves heard
and felt more effectively than that. I think it had
an adverse reaction on students ... or any time
you do something like this. I know with myself,
and I'm only about a half a generation separated
from most of them, I was disgusted with it. I think
that some action should be taken to ensure it
doesn’t happen in the future. What, I don’t know.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here on our campus, what did you think of the
arrangements for the observance of Governor’s
Day?

Well, since I was involved in the planning
of them—is that what you’re speaking of?—I
thought they were fairly well firmed up, well
planned, and so on. Oh, we started planning for
it well in advance, a month before Governor’s
Day, and we spent quite a bit of time in prepara¬
tion for it. We used to have fifteen drill periods,
and now we have seven in the classroom, so they
get more leadership, more exposure to public
speaking, problem solving, things like this, which
are more leadership oriented than the drill field
was. So we had seven hours of this non-leader-
ship lab and then eight hours in the drill field,
and we took three hours out of that primarily to
prepare for Governor’s Day. Well, the final hour
was Governor’s Day. And the cadets put a lot of
time into it, and the personnel in the Military
Science Department put a lot of time into it, and
we thought it was fairly well planned. We had
all the details worked out. We had contingency
plans, of course, and I thought .... Well, every¬
thing considered, it went very well.

What was your reaction to the demonstrations?

Well, I was surprised initially. I was unhappy
about it, because it disrupted the ceremonies, ini¬
tially, but I think that the Military Science De¬
partment gained much from it as far as public
sentiment went. Of course, it also tended to po¬
larize the groups on the right and the left, or the
radicals and the conservatives within the com¬
munity here, which is, I guess, an unfortunate
situation. Whereas before people were, well,
more neutral or willing to communicate, now
they’re more polarized.

My personal feelings, however, on the event
was that it disrupted our ceremony to a degree,
but much more was gained for us than for the
demonstrators. I think they got out of hand. I was
sorry to see them there in the first place, because
it was my understanding, after Monday morning
quarterbacking, that they weren’t supposed to be
there at all. They were supposed to be restricted
to the Manzanita Bowl here. And I think it was a
black eye for President Miller that they got out
and he allowed them to come into the stadium,
although I think he handled it very well after they
got there. Unfortunately, they didn’t react very
well to his pleas to calm down. I think it was
disgusting to see some of them, when the national
anthem was being played, run up their peace signs
and hiss and boo. If at no other time, I think they
could have been more respectful at this one time,
when they would have made many points for
themselves, whereas they cut themselves badly
on this one occasion.

What do you think was the most effective part of
both the demonstrations and the observance?

Effective parts? I think if you’re speaking in
respect to reaction and accomplishing some¬
thing—is that what you’re talking about?—the
students didn’t really accomplish a heck of a lot,
other than to make a lot of noise and alienate a
lot of people. They could have been very effec¬
tive if they’d marched around the stadium three
times, as they had agreed to do or as President
Miller had told them they could do. At the time,

JOEL GARTENBERG

147

they weren’t allowed to come to the stadium. If
they’d gone around three times, gone into the
stands, and sat quietly and observed the cer¬
emony, which wouldn’t have required them to
go out of their way, they could have done very
well. I would have considered that a peaceful
demonstration, and although it would have dis¬
rupted the ceremony to the effect that we would
have lost some time, it wouldn’t have had any
actual adverse effect on the populous, the silent
majority, if you will.

As far as the ceremony itself went, I think it
was a credit to the cadets that they were so well
behaved and disciplined out there. They didn’t
break ranks or anything while they were being
heckled and harassed by the demonstrators. On
one occasion, I know there was a student, part of
the dissidents, who had ridden a unicycle through
the ranks of the cadets. Were you at Governor’s
Day?

No.

You missed a good ceremony. But anyway,
he rode a unicycle through the ranks of some of
the cadets, and they didn’t break ranks, and they
stood there quietly. And a few of the demonstra¬
tors took off the cadets’ hats, but they remained
fairly immobile, and I think that was a credit to
them. And, of course, the way they marched, I
think, was something to be proud of. In my opin¬
ion—of course, I lean toward the conservative
side, or maybe a little bit to the right—the cadets
came out much more ahead than the demonstra¬
tors, who lost many points.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of these factions at Governor’s Day—the dem¬
onstrators, the ROTC, and the administration?

As a result of what?

Well, with the conflict that developed there.

What do I think should have been the reac¬
tion?

Yes.

Well, I don’t know what the demonstrators
had to react to, really—nothing, as far as I could
tell. As far as the cadets go, it’s conceivable they
could have broken ranks and gotten somewhat
unruly. And I’m sure they were perturbed. I don’t
think they should have broken ranks, now. Of
course, considering my position and the fact that
I’m an army officer and have been in a disci¬
pline-oriented atmosphere for six or seven years
now, based on my training, I would say that the
reaction should have been just what it was, to
act as they had been. I was somewhat pleasantly
surprised, because they did restrain themselves
so well. If I were in the ranks, I don’t know, I
might have got a little more irate and taken some
action. I don’t know. I think it was a credit to
them that they didn’t break ranks or anything.

As far as what the reaction of the spectators
should be, I think it was probably pretty much
what it should have been. They were somewhat
disgusted with the demonstrators. The spectators
were there to see the ceremony. Many of them
participated, to present an award and so on, and
consequently, I think they reacted as they should
have. They were somewhat unhappy with the
demonstrators, because they did disrupt the cer¬
emony, and I think their reaction was pretty much
as I would have expected.

And the administration?

The administration. To be honest with you, I
was a little bit surprised that President Miller got
up and even told the students to sit down, be¬
cause I thought he was, well, a little more re¬
served than that. I was pleasantly surprised to
see him do this. I think that I would have ex¬
pected him to have more control over the cer¬
emony. As I saw it, there was only one police
officer there, and they should have had more
there, particularly after they found out that dem¬
onstrators were going to be there. In addition to
this, the city police have jurisdiction over the
campus, and they could have brought them in if

148

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

necessary. Now, the result of this might have been
a further confrontation, I don’t know. But I think
the administration, considering the fact that
Governor’s Day is a yearly event—it’s had a pre¬
cedent for, oh, seven or eight years that I know
of—they should have allowed the ceremony to
go on and should have done a little bit more to
support it. And when I say more to support it, I
mean to curb the demonstrators.

Yes. What was your reaction to the violence that
followed Governor’s Day?

I was honestly surprised at the fire bombing.
I guess you’re speaking of the two fire bomb¬
ings? The one of the Military Science Depart¬
ment surprised me somewhat, because I thought
the students were a lot more conservative than
that, although there are a few radicals in the
crowd. I tend to think, although I may be wrong,
that the people that did the fire bombing, even if
they were University of Nevada students here,
were incited by some outside influence. I had
heard a number of rumors that there were stu¬
dents from Berkeley here. Well, four people were
pointed out as being from Berkeley, and I, of
course, didn’t recognize them, because there arc
many students I don’t recognize on campus. But
as I say, I was surprised that the fire bombing
took place at all. Even more so, after I got down
to the campus and started speaking to some of
the students, I found out how disgusted and ap¬
palled they were at the fire bombing.

As for the fire bombing of the Hobbit Hole,
or whatever it is, the house over on Virginia
Street, that kind of surprised me also, though I
wasn’t particularly concerned about it, consid¬
ering that it didn’t hit close to home, as did the
fire bombing of the Military Science Department.
However, I felt that it might have an adverse re¬
action in that it might polarize people once again
into thinking that it was the cowboys or the ROTC
group or the Sundowners who had done it, and
as a result of this, there might be further con¬
frontations. As far as any actual reaction to the
bombing of the Hobbit Hole, I couldn’t really
care less.

What category of participant—the students, the
faculty, or outsiders—do you think were most
important in stirring up the violence that
erupted?

I think you’ve got a strong faculty influence
here, and I wouldn’t restrict it to the two who
were investigated—I don’t know the results of
the investigation yet—Maher and Adamian. But
I think there are other faculty members who,
rather than presenting the completely objective
viewpoint in classroom, tend to lean to the left—
I’m sure there are many—and as a result of this,
I think they tend to, oh, sow some seeds in the
students’ minds, which are further used by stu¬
dents or agitators from other areas who probably
come in and stir up the students. I think, after
being down to the campus and speaking to a num¬
ber of students, that most of them tend to be con¬
servative and wouldn’t go to the violent edge, I
guess you might say. The small representation
of students who did march around on Governor’s
Day—200 or 300, maybe a little bit more than
that—weren’t representative of a campus of
6,000.1 understand many of the people who were
marching around in Governor’s Day were not
students at all.

So, I guess there’s an outside influence. There
has to be, to an extent, although I think, as I said,
that some of the faculty members don’t help
things at all. They should be more objective in
their teaching. Now, the courses I’ve taken
haven’t had any problems, and they’re graduate
level courses—fairly straightforward, not politi¬
cal science or psychology or anything like that,
but accounting and business-type courses. So I
haven’t had any exposure to some of this more
liberal or left teachings in the classroom, but I
understand they do occur. I’ve gotten second¬
hand hearsay from students, and I think this tends
to poison the minds to a degree if the academics
aren’t presented more objectively.So I think it’s
an influence of both the faculty and students, to
a lesser degree, and then some outside agitators’
influence.

Do you think the outsiders are important?

JOEL GARTENBERG

149

Well, it’s hard to tell. I’m sure that some out¬
siders have had a partaking, or an involvement, I
guess you’d say, in the activities that have taken
place here on the campus. I’m not so sure they’re
as important as the faculty itself. I think because
of the conservative element you have here, things
tended to be less severe than they could have
been. Now, this is the faculty on the other side,
as I say. But some of the instructors are too lib¬
eral, and I think this is your main problem. And I
may be wrong, but just based on my observa¬
tions, which have been somewhat concentrated
during the past few weeks as a result of the ac¬
tivities that have taken place, I feel that the in¬
structors are the biggest problem we have.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence from the situation that
developed?

On Governor’s Day?

Well, stemming from Governor’s Day and the
bombings and so forth.

Well, I don’t know. I probably think the com¬
munication, which is a big word right now, that
took place between the rival factions, the fact
that the students voiced their opinions that they
didn’t want violence, that they wanted peaceful
demonstrations—which are fine, as long as they
remain peaceful—were the big influences, really.
The fact that students got together and talked
about the thing and said they didn’t want vio¬
lence on both sides of the confrontation, both the
conservatives and the liberals or the radicals. I
think this contributed greatly, as far as internal
policing of the problem went.

Externally, I think that the administration and
the local police cooperate enough or communi¬
cate enough between or among themselves that
they have managed to thwart any further violence.
I think the students have done an excellent job
of policing within the university to be sure that
nothing else occurred. We had many volunteers
come up to the Military Science Department who
volunteered to stand guard there, make sure it

didn’t happen again, both cadets and other stu¬
dents. Sol think that the conservative or logical-
thinking elements in the university thwarted any
further confrontations.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image or reputation with outsiders?

I think they have a strong influence on it. I
thought considerably about this. I think it’s un¬
fortunate that a few students, such as the 200 or
300 that were marching around on Governor’s
Day, should influence the headlines so much. Of
course, the headlines are always seeking the sto¬
ries which will appeal to the populous the most,
and this was the biggest thing happening in the
Reno area. And it was publicized throughout the
northern part of Nevada. I know we received
publicity as far back as Washington, D.C. I think
it’s adverse.

Well, you can make a good comparison here
between the honoring of President Miller earlier
in the year, when the students went to his home
and sent him and his wife off on a vacation for a
couple of days, in which they got national pub¬
licity. However, they got a black eye out of the
Governor’s Day festivities, which is unfortunate,
because it was a minority of the students, a mi¬
nority of the people who were there that were
actually demonstrating. And many of those, as I
said before, and as I understand it, were not even
students. So, I think reaction was adverse.

You can see by the reaction the Board of Re¬
gents have had, the many editorials in the news¬
papers recently, all of which have been anti-stu¬
dent, anti-university. I understand that President
Miller and the regents have had their jobs threat¬
ened if they didn’t do something about it. What
has happened is that people have become polar¬
ized, as I said before. And the conservatives have
become more firmly entrenched, and probably a
lot of them arc leaning to the right. More patri¬
otic groups, like the veterans and so on, are pretty
well disgusted with it and want to take some ac¬
tion and ensure something like this doesn’t hap¬
pen again. The general populous, who’s paying
the taxes in support of the university, are dis-

150

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

gusted that their funds should be wasted by stu¬
dents who demonstrate—and I’m not only talk¬
ing about Governor’s Day. That was a sanctioned
affair, the time out of class. But other times, when
students don’t go to classes, they can demonstrate
or conduct some other activity which takes away
from their class time. So people are somewhat
aroused now. I think that the bulk of the demon¬
strations and the other activities that have taken
place on the campus have had an adverse reac¬
tion with the people in surrounding areas. They’re
quite unhappy with what has occurred.

What can the university do to focus public opin ¬
ion ?

Good question. I would say that prior to the
activities that took place, the public opinion of
the university was fine. I think that I would tend
to try and keep the focus off the university, par¬
ticularly if it’s going to be adverse. If there’s
something favorable that occurs, why sure, go
ahead and publicize it. It’s hard to pick up a pa¬
per—at least a local paper—without finding some
article about the University of Nevada in it,
whether it be in sports or some scholarship be¬
ing presented or something to this effect. But I
think this more neutral publicity is more desir¬
able. And then, of course, when something fa¬
vorable comes along, why, play it up, although
you won’t get any better than a second- or third-
page headline, as opposed to a demonstration,
which hits the front page—something violent that
happens. If I remember correctly, the Nevada
State Journal used about a third or a half of a
front page to cover the fire bombing of the ROTC
Department. It’s hard to say what the university
should do. I’m sure they spent many thousands
of dollars trying to figure out what they can do
to better their image, so it’s not really my place
to tell them what they could do, although I would
tend to remain neutral, since it is a conservative
community.

Do you feel that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participation in demonstrations?

No, not here. Students couldn’t ask for any
more here, really. I didn’t go to a liberal institu¬
tion; I went to a military academy, West Point,
so I’ve never been to a college, and I don’t know
what most of them are like other than what I’ve
gotten secondhand. But I haven’t heard any com¬
plaints about academic freedom other than from
some of the minority groups, like the blacks on
campus, who want some black studies and a few
other things. As far as the majority of the stu¬
dents go, I think they’re fairly well satisfied. The
campus is fairly liberal, although the community
is conservative, at least as far as academics go,
and I don’t think the students can complain to
any great degree that they’re being suppressed
or anything along these lines.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally? Or should they try to influence govern¬
mental policy?

They should influence governmental policy
to the degree it affects the university, I think. And
what I mean by this is that they should make their
views heard. Being right here at the university,
students and faculty can get a better feel than
anyone outside a university can for their own
problems, and as such, if they have a problem or
if they need something ....

One thing I’ve observed that you need badly
here at the University of Nevada is a gymnasium,
and we should get involved politically for the
gymnasium. Now, I understand the regents have
a gymnasium as a priority, but it’s way down on
the list and shouldn’t be completed or even stalled
till 1974, 1975, 1976, somewhere in there. So
it’s a low-priority project, but I think something
like this deems some attention. If the students
directed their energies towards something like
this with the support of the faculty, which I’m
sure everybody would agree on, they’d probably
accomplish a lot more than they would by dem¬
onstrations.

There’s a number of other things that could
be done on the campus here that students and
faculty should get together on. As far as pure poli-

JOEL GARTENBERG

151

tics, like what has recently been publicized, the
election of this lawyer Springer downtown, I have
my own views about that. He has a good record,
but.... Well, I won’t say anymore on that one,
but I don’t think students have any business get¬
ting involved in this. Their primary function is
to get an education here. I think a gymnasium
would assist them in getting an education, or a
better one. It would certainly enhance the ath¬
letic programs here at the university. However, I
don’t think either students or faculty should get
involved in politics just for the sake of getting
involved in politics, such as electing this man
Springer, who has been a great fighter for the
minority groups or anyone else who needed as¬
sistance. But I think that they should restrict
themselves to something that affects them di¬
rectly.

Where do you think the peace movement is headed
in this area?

Well, right now, I think it’s going to prob¬
ably remain fairly neutral throughout the sum¬
mer; everybody’s going to have their own way.
Come the fall, it’s hard to say, really. It depends
on what occurs in Vietnam, how many troops are
withdrawn, whether or not the troops come out
of Cambodia, whether or not there are any agita¬
tors. So many variables involved, it’s really hard
to say, and I wouldn’t right now venture a guess.

What other comments would you like to make
about the whole situation?

Well, I’d like to say that I was pleasantly
surprised by the students on the campus, after
going down and speaking to them on the day fol¬
lowing the fire bombing and one or two days af¬
ter that, speaking to student groups and finding
out that many of them are more level-headed than
I thought they were. I thought they were, for the
most part, a bunch of reactionaries, and I found
out they weren’t. I think there’s really a fine
bunch of people here at the university—now I’m
generalizing, since there are a few individuals

who are, of course, exceptions to this—fine
bunch of students and faculty. And I hate to see a
university torn apart by a few who advocate vio¬
lent change and who advocate change right now.
It’s unfortunate that some of them don’t realize
that change doesn’t occur as you snap your fin¬
gers and that it takes a little bit of time.

I think we’ve got a very fine campus, as I’ve
said. I’m very pleased to be here, myself. I
couldn’t be any happier anywhere else, I don’t
believe. Well, I couldn’t be happier anywhere
else. I think we’re fortunate that the violence we
have had is at such a low level as opposed to
some other places, where the national guard has
been called up, where classes have been canceled
completely, things which—as far as classes be¬
ing cancelled completely—I don’t condone at all.
And if there’s a requirement for the national
guard, which I doubt there ever will be, here at
the university. I’m an advocate of bringing the
national guard in, if necessary, to protect the prop¬
erty here and personnel. I think that’s about it.

Do you want any restrictions on your interview?

Well, I want it understood that it’s not a mili¬
tary viewpoint, now. It’s strictly my personal
viewpoint. It has nothing to do with the military
or anyone else up in the Military Science De¬
partment. And as you see many times, it’s not
condoned by the United States Army or the gov¬
ernment. Other than that, I have no objections to
using it.

Taber Griswold

June 18, 1970

So, now just for the record, if you ’ll say your name
and your class and major, and where you ’re from.

OK. Wow. My name is Taber Griswold. I’m
a pre-law student, and I’m going to be a junior.
I’m from Squaw Valley in California.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Well, the reason why I think I was chosen is
because I’m in two organizations. I'm on the sen¬
ate, and I’m what you could say a charter mem¬
ber of the USA [United Student Alliance], I’ve
been involved in these moratorium efforts on cam¬
pus, so, politically, I think I was chosen because
of my diversity.

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to go into Cambodia ?

I was appalled. I felt that way because I’m
completely against the war. And I have since
learned that this offensive has been in the plan¬

ning for approximately two and a half years,
which I think is an insult to the American people.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

I think there was a direct connection between
the two of them, but the Cambodian offensive
was an overt aggressive act, and it was like throw¬
ing gasoline on a smoldering fire, I felt. Kent State
and the other campuses erupted—all the way
across the country with a lot of hot, heated ten¬
sion.

What was your reaction to the events in the other
parts of the country related to the Cambodia de¬
cision ?

Well, I was kind of two-fold. I am against
violence. And the Kent State incidents and the
four deaths there shocked me, because I feel that
the national guard should not have bullets in that
case. I think also that the students, on their part,
were not behaving as maturely as the situation
called for—though I know situations get carried

154

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

away into a mass fluctuation. So it can happen to
anybody. I think, though, that the violence was
really completely uncalled for.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangements
made for observing Governor’s Day?

Well, I showed up on Governor’s Day, you
know, after the beginning of the ceremonies. And
I sat down on the field, because that’s where I’m
comfortable—sitting on grass rather than on
bleachers.

I have mixed feelings about Governor’s Day,
because I feel that the ROTC, as a group of
people, do deserve their merits and awards for
their duty. But I feel that different circumstances
could be used. I do not think that it should be
such a celebrated occasion to be giving these
merits. I mean, seniors are given their awards on
graduation, and I feel that that is the only place
for a major formal occasion. Other award cer¬
emonies are very quiet, such as, you know,
women’s night of honor. I feel that the ROTC
thing should be very toned down and subdued. I
don’t think it should be in the stadium and be
such a big occasion, a big ceremony.

Also, the heat that went on that day between
the people, I found really, well, depressing, in fact.
I was sitting on that field, and there were these
tempers that started moving. I saw people who I
normally considered quiet people become very
loud and boisterous. I know one boy wanted to
go up and take a gun from one of the ROTC, and
Ben Hazard going up to him and saying, “Listen,
if you want to make an overt attack against some¬
one there, pick on one of those gentlemen sitting
up there. Don’t pick on the poor ROTC student
who’s there because he has to be there.”

I thought Ben Hazard, Paul Adamian, Bob
Harvey, Dan Teglia, and other people who were
there did quite well in Lying to calm down people,
between the students and the faculty. A lot of
people felt that they were kind of traitors to it all,
and I felt that with all the cops that were around
there, that was the only way it could be.

I do not think there should have been any
Reno cops there, at all. I think there only should
have been university cops. Because I talked to
lots of people later on that night, and those guys
were so pissed off, because there wouldn’t even
be any reason for cops there, if anything had hap¬
pened.

Well, anyway, the young man who laid down
in front of the car was a very unusual person;
that was what he felt like doing, so that’s what he
did, and that was completely uncalled for. Paul
Adamian asked him to get up. He wasn’t encour¬
aging him to lay down there. And the uproar that
ensued from that, I thought, got me uptight. I don’t
like to be uptight. The very fact that one of the
cars was pushing into the peace march that was
up there has been turned around—saying that we
were blocking the cars—which shows, I think,
the short-sightedness of the people who are
against these marches like that. The peace march
was okayed at the end of the procession, and I
don’t think the person who was driving that car
had the right to push into the back of the proces¬
sion.

I know myself that before the Governor’s Day
was over, I felt my mind kind of losing its indi¬
viduality in the sense that I was feeling all these
vibrations coming from people—very antagonis¬
tic vibrations. The guys and I went up there, and
I was just sitting there feeling. We weren’t think¬
ing of ourselves. When we were up there, we were
feeling all these high emotions, this tension, and
the height of feeling that was going on there—
and we were quite scared. I had a feeling that I
would have gone with whichever way it would
have gone, because we had kind of lost our indi¬
viduality in the mass of people. Afterwards, I felt
very drained, like a lot of emotion had been taken
from me. Now, I hadn’t done anything up there,
but I felt like I had, which I didn’t like.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration and the most effective part of
the Governor’s Day observance ?

Well, for effective, I really can’t think too
objectively, because I was in the middle of all

TABER GRISWOLD

155

these feelings going on down on this field. My
opinion is. from where I was sitting down on the
field with this group of people, that’s where I
wanted to be. I don’t know. I would say that I
think, for me, the effective part of the demon¬
stration was sitting down there showing that that’s
where I wanted to be. I didn’t want to be up in
the bleachers. I really didn’t want to be out
amongst the ROTC people.

As for the ROTC part of the ceremony, I
thought the effective part of that was the way that
the young men kept their cool, because I know
they were mad. I got in an argument with Louie
Test, who was standing out on the field after it
was all over. Sol know how they were feeling. I
think that the way they kept their cool was the
most effective paid about that. And the ceremony
itself, I didn’t pay too much attention, because
that wasn’t why I was up there.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various people involved up there at the sta¬
dium—the ROTC, the demonstrators, the univer¬
sity administration—with the conflict that devel¬
oped up there ?

Well, I felt that the conflict was very well
contained by the faculty members that I’ve listed
before. I don’t think Governor’s Day should have
been held that day, in consideration of the uni¬
versity and Governor Laxalt’s planning. They did
nothing about commemorating before it, in any
way, the Kent State murders. And in the larger
context involving the whole conflict of the pre¬
ceding days and the days afterwards, I felt that
the Governor’s Day was in very bad taste. And
hence, this is one of the reasons why I think it
should not be a well-publicized occasion. It
should just be toned down to be an awards cer¬
emony for the ROTC people.

How about the demonstrators? What do you think
should have been their reaction?

The demonstrators got extremely uptight
while they were sitting down there, and there was

a conflict. In a way, I think that people should
not have made such a mass of people—and then
lost individuality like that. Then in the other way,
I think there really should have been a real dem¬
onstration out there, a confrontation. I felt it was
the only way that it could be, because people are
tired of not being listened to. I thought Governor’s
Day was a very good example of showing how
the events weren’t listened to.

So, in thinking about it, what happened up
there was the only thing that could have happened,
because if it was any less, everybody would have
just walked. The apathy would have just kind of
ruffled the fur of a lot of people, and they would
have left and not proved any point by being up
there. If it had gone the other way, I think a lot of
skulls would have been cracked. So, as I said be¬
fore, I think that what did happen up there was
the only way it could be.

And the ROTC? What should they have done?

I felt they did what they .... I felt that they
behaved accordingly, also. They didn’t break
ranks and get mad. I mean, a lot of the tempers
were very heated, but they didn’t lose control,
which is more than you can say for some demon¬
strators.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the fire bombings?

I was mortified. Concerning the fire bomb¬
ings, when I heard about them, I laughed, because
I think that I could throw a fire bomb better than
those that were thrown. To have one bounce off
of a wall, one not even go off, one go through a
window—I just laughed, because I thought, you
know, to do nothing, it was just completely asi¬
nine. I thought if somebody was going to do some¬
thing like that, they may as well do a good job of
it or don’t do anything at all.

The fire bombing of the Hobbit Hole, I
thought, was just completely senseless, because
why bomb a house where people are welcomed,
you know, no matter who they are? I could see

156

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

no sense unless it was a person who felt that he
could strike at the left movement by burning up a
house. It seems very inane to me, like he was very
stupid politically, you know, and perhaps risked
murdering people, which I think is just as bad as
something like what happened at Kent State.

There was one incident not connected with
the fire bombings, though, that upset me quite a
bit. When everybody marched back down to the
bowl to listen to people talk, the P.A. system did
not stay hooked up. So this one person went fol¬
lowing the extension cord up to the administra¬
tion office, and he was jumped by six ROTC
people, who started beating him up. I saw him,
you know, and then just as I saw this happening,
Doug Sherman [a university policeman] came up
and really bitched at the ROTC people, how they
had absolutely no right to do this. They said,
“Well, they interrupted our ceremony. Why can’t
we interrupt their ceremony?”

Doug said, “You know they didn’t touch any
of your people. Don’t you touch anybody.”

It was just a perfect example of the conflict
going up there, because all the guy was trying to
do was make sure that the extension cord was
correct, and the ROTC people had been pulling
it out. Things calmed down quite a bit thereaf¬
ter—after having the fire bombings, which
seemed kind of out of context, almost, to me. Very
unnecessary.

What category of person involved—the students
or the faculty or outsiders—do you think was most
important in stirring up violence on the campus?

Outsiders, because there were five of them,
and they came here looking for trouble. They
decided they couldn’t find the trouble here, so
they were going to make trouble. The only crime
that the faculty might have committed was by
opening up people’s minds so that they could lis¬
ten to these people. There were meetings going
on all the time in the student union, and there
was one I walked into, when they were talking to
these five young men that had come in.

They said, “We came here looking for what’s
happening. If it isn’t happening here, then we’ll
do it.”

The reaction of the students was, “Get the
hell out of here. We really don’t need you.”

That’s why I say outsiders, because I knew
these five people, and I saw them, and I talked
with them, and I heard them talk. It wasn’t people
like Dan McKinney, Brooke Piper, Dan Teglia,
or me who caused trouble or anything. There was
this outside influence that came in with these
people to disrupt the things that were happening
here. I don’t think those outside people were stu¬
dents and faculty members on this campus. They
could have just come from downtown Reno, and
that’s outside far enough.

What kinds of actions do you feel were most im¬
portant in cooling off the situation after the fire
bombings?

Well, one thing was the people who turned
off to these five cats who came on campus. The
fire bombings really shook up people and made
them start thinking. They started making an ef¬
fort to bring themselves down. I know I had to.

But the thing that started me getting uptight
again was when I heard that the cops were out
for Paul Adamian the Friday night after this all
was going on. I thought, “Wow, you know, they’ve
got no business going out for professors up here.”

Then that rumor proved to be dispelled later
on, but the pressure that was put upon Gunter
[Hiller] and Paul and Dan [Teglia] and Fred
[Maher] was immense. They had to keep it cool,
because everything would have blown up around
here, and you know, that’s not what we needed.
So I would say that people have made the effort
to calm down. But then, on the other hand, I re¬
member something that Dan McKinney said: “If
nothing happens here to work it out the way it’s
supposed to go, I think I could find myself a tree
and bury myself in the middle of it, because it
just won’t change anything here.” And I have a
feeling that this university code that Procter Plug

TABER GRISWOLD

157

Jr. is coming up with is the very thing that Dan is
talking about. It's reactionary. It’s not progres¬
sive.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image outside?

Well, two things: Yes, I think to a small ex¬
tent the university has lost its reputation of being
“blah.” Yet, on the other hand, because of what
happened and the reactions and the measures
taken against it, I think it will turn off people from
trying to do anything constructive here—anything
constructive and timely—because the trend that
I see on this campus as something that is timely
right now will not be effective here until about
ten years from now. And any place that is that
slow, I don’t want to be there; I feel that my feel¬
ings are being restricted.

What can the university do to focus public opin¬
ion? You talk about how people feel about the
university from the outside—how can the univer¬
sity make them feel right about the university?

Well, the university’s main concern is par¬
ticularly with these people who live here in Reno,
the Nevada taxpayers. There’s been one thing set
up, and that’s the Clinic over at the Center. I think
it’s a fantastic idea. They sat in the senate, and I
heard everybody bitching about it, and I walked
out. You know, I was completely foreign. I didn’t
want to listen to everybody complain. And I’m
against committees, but I think a branch of pub¬
licity should be set up so that the conservative
mode in Nevada can understand the progression
that belongs in the university.

You know, the people who are in this univer¬
sity, particularly, are usually here for an educa¬
tion. They’re not opened up to socialism—and I
use that word in the whole progressive sense of
it—you know, just to be opened up a little bit to
what it could be like if the people are state sup¬
ported. And it’s in any sense of the word, prefer¬
able to living under a capitalistic, imperialistic
state. I feel that the university is an alcove, you

know. It should be separated from society. It
should not really have to answer to society that
much. It should be able to progress by itself in
what it is doing. And the way this university is
set up, it is so connected with Nevada that it can’t.
It’ll move forward one step and go back three.

I was just looking through some of the issues
of the Sagebrush that came out the beginning of
the fall semester, and then the ones I remember
from this semester. The difference from them is
fantastic, because the ones last fall were very
open, and they came out with things that were
very good. And in comparison, the ones that have
come out this semester are very drab—compared
to what it could be—because they have been re¬
stricted so much in their use of photography, ma¬
terial, and subjects. Maybe they felt that the trend
that was existing in fall semester would make it
end up like Berkeley Barb or something. I don’t
know how their thinking was, but I thought it was
far too reactionary.

Concerning publicity, seeing that the univer¬
sity is in the state that it is in, it has to make the
overt attempt to communicate. The administra¬
tion has to defend students. Otherwise, you know,
they screw themselves over in front of the people.
But I don’t think they should screw the students
over in the same way by not doing anything.
That’s the reason why I participated in the USA
demands to instigate the administration to move
themselves. But they’re so hung up in the bureau¬
cratic bullshit and interaction and the money that
comes from the outside that everything just gets
stalemated.

I really can’t see how this university could
turn progressive in any sense of the word like
other universities. I’ve been to Fresno State,
which was very much in a similar kind of bind.
Violence broke out down there because maybe
the students felt they had to break out of it. And I
wouldn’t like to see that happen here, because
it’s a beautiful place and also because if any vio¬
lence broke out here, the kids would be stomped
in the ground or shot, in my personal opinion.

So, I’ve been beating around the bush, but I
think that an honest effort should be made for

158

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

communication, and I mean not just communica¬
tion that might come down because somebody
happens to hear of something that goes around,
but an overt attempt of one person to be able to
communicate objectively and not have it turned
around and twisted, as so many times happens.

Do you think issues of academic freedom are in¬
volved in participating in demonstrations?

Yes. Academic freedom is a belief that if a
person feels one thing to be true, then it is his
right to tell other people what he feels to be true.
Now, the problem that occurs is that they say that
one may tty to force on another their feelings and
their beliefs. And I heard some rightist people
accusing leftist people of this when we were hav¬
ing all these talks here, just people getting to¬
gether and talking. But the thing was that we were
able to get together and talk.

I don’t think anybody’s rights have been in¬
fringed upon on this campus to the extent of real
bodily force. I mean, I do not think the ROTC’s
rights at that demonstration were infringed upon.
They couldn’t hear everything that was going on,
but the ceremony was not completely disrupted.
They still had their ceremony; the demonstrators
still had their demonstration.

I think that the rights of academic freedom
allow a person to say what he feels to be true, to
believe what he feels to be true. These university
codes that have been flying around, coming out
of the Board of Regents, are a direct violation of
the true essence of academic freedom. When they
say that a professor should be investigated for
communist influence that’s in his background,
that leaves an area so wide open that a university
is not going to be hiring anybody. And that is not
part of a university. A university is to bring people
together, to introduce them, to have a course on
Marxism. That is, you know, what belongs in a
university. You can also have a course in imperi¬
alism. It’s the subject matter which counts, not
people’s ideals. They have the right to expound
them. They have the right to do as they believe.

And nobody should be witch hunted for what they
see fit.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally? Or should they be trying to influence gov¬
ernmental policies?

The only way the students and faculty can be
effective politically is when they get together. I
saw schisms develop on this campus—the stu¬
dent body dividing into left and right, pulling the
moderate people left and right. I mean, it was just
like the Spanish Inquisition torture. The same
thing was happening in the faculty; but it was
even stranger because you had very far right
people, then not so right (but still right), and the
very far left people, and then “old-fashioned” lib¬
erals (and I mean, not like the old meaning of
liberal, but just old-fashioned liberals, which are
quite a majority).

I had an occasion to talk with six people in
the agriculture college, and one of them, Dean
[Glen] Peterson said he knew who I was—mean¬
ing as an activist. And he was trying to get me
uptight. These other five professors were teasing
him, saying, “Hey man, I don’t trust you, either.
You’re over thirty.” This type of thing. A black
friend of mine was there, also, just watching
this—and it’s degrees of people receptive to other
people. I feel Dean Peterson is an ass because of
this interaction that I had with him, whereas these
other five men have risen in my estimation. They
were all members of, oh, landscaping-horticul¬
ture, a division of that college.

So I feel that there needs to be a lot of com¬
munication between the faculty and the students.
But when this happens, there are cries of activ¬
ism, radicalism. So really, there’s not that much
choice of how to get people together, because
they’re either going to be one way, or they’re
going to be the other. This campus is in an area
of Nevada where it can divide into a battlefield,
because these people downtown are worried
about the casinos getting beat up or blown up or
something, so they come up here and like an ant-

TABER GRISWOLD

159

eater with a poor ant, they just kind of swallow it
up. But political effectiveness is in mass num¬
bers and putting people in the right place.

Where do you think the peace movement is headed
in this area?

The peace movement is headed in two direc¬
tions. One, towards Charles Springer and trying
to put him as a third candidate on the ballot for
governorship. The other one is a setup of meet¬
ings by Pete Perriera, getting people such as Dan
Teglia together with downtown people—such as
the business meeting coming up with the Nevada
Bar Association president and the vice-president
of Dow Chemical. Get these people together, and
they can talk and perhaps understand each other
a little more.

I was talking to Dan about the first one, and
he just made a glimpse at me when I asked him
how it went. As far as Dan is going, people here
are far too conservative to really be receptive to
his ideas, to be able to open their minds to a point
where they’d be willing to let something happen.
He feels right now that they’re not willing to let
anything happen.

Do you have other comments you ’cl like to make
about this whole situation?

Well, I found that I got too involved with it,
too involved with it in a superficial sense. I was
getting hung up, going in so many directions.
When this happens to me, I get sick, and I got
sick. And it’s just too trying for me to be in a
situation like this, and yet the way I believe puts
me in the middle of the situation. So, my feelings
are against super-uptight circumstances arising
out of reactions. And the only way I see to pre¬
vent this is by people being perceptive and see¬
ing that this trend is going to be coming because
of this, this, and this—and do something about
it.

When Dean Sam [Basta] told me that he was
in favor of a P.S. system all the way through the
school, well, he did get on to awarding a certifi¬

cate, yet he will not do anything about it. He will
not do anything about his belief. He’ll just keep
it inside of him and go on with his own way. It
shows to me the level at this university. It shows
to me that when people do have these beliefs,
and they’re not going to do anything, something
has to serve as a catalyst. And those things don’t
serve as a proper catalyst. I just hope that people
open up their minds. I guess that would be all I
could say.

Robert D. Harvey

June 1, 1970

For the record, if you ’ll say your name and your
home and your position.

My home address? Robert D. Harvey. I live
in Reno, and I'm an assistant professor of En¬
glish.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

I don’t know. I suppose because it was known
that I was at Governor’s Day.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia with troops?

Well, I wouldn’t say that it was one of rage,
but it was one of a very intense disappointment. I
thought the speech that he made—whatever it
was, Wednesday or Thursday—of the week pre¬
ceding Governor’s Day was most upsetting. It was
self-serving. He was thinking about himself. He
was thinking about running for the second term.
He was worrying about the fall elections and not

about the country. I thought it was an extension
of the war, and I still think so.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on this cam¬
pus?

This will have to be hearsay, because I should
say that on the morning of Tuesday, the fifth of
May, I came over here confident that Governor’s
Day wasn’t until Thursday.

On Monday afternoon, a student who is an
advisee of mine, had come into my office and
mentioned something about Governor’s Day,
“What are you going to do about Governor’s
Day?”

I said, “Well, I’m certainly not going to worry
about that, because it’s not until Thursday.”

He said, “Oh, no, it’s tomorrow.”

I said, “No. No, it isn’t. It’s on Thursday, and
I can show you that it’s on Thursday.” And I took
down the time schedule for the semester, on the
front of which is identified Governor’s Day as
the seventh of May, and I said, “Tomorrow’s the
fifth of May.”

He said, “What do you know about that?”
and went out of my office scratching his head.

162

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Robert Harvey, 1970s.

What I’ve heard since is that there were some
planning sessions. A number of students and some
faculty were meeting in the Hobbit Hole and per¬
haps elsewhere Monday afternoon and evening,
late into the night.

In my opinion, on top of the decision to go
into Cambodia, the incident which occurred on
Monday at Kent State College pushed a number
of people on the campus here, well, let’s say, over
the edge of ordinary rational discourse about the
president’s policies: the national policy in the Far
East, and the whole notion of repression through¬
out the country. And they were working all Mon¬
day evening and had plans to disrupt the proceed¬
ings the next day.

So, on Tuesday morning, I came over to the
campus as usual—about 9:00—and saw Paul
Adamian wearing a striped arm band and sitting

out on the terrace of the union having a cup of
coffee.

I said, “How’s it going?”

He said, “Well, we’re going to go up and bust
up that Governor’s Day thing.”

I said, “Well, you’re operating on the wrong
day. That isn’t until the seventh.”

He said, “No, it’s the fifth.”

I said, “No, it’s the seventh.”

He said, “Well, what does this mean, then?”
and handed me the paper which identified the
proceedings as, of course, on Tuesday the fifth. I
don’t get a local paper; I get the |San Francisco ]
Chronicle.

I said, “Oh. Well, I’m operating in limbo,
then.” And at the time that I was talking to Mr.
Adamian, he said that he hadn’t got much rest
the night before and that he hadn’t gone to bed.
And he looked pretty tired and worn. I commented
to Mr. Adamian that I wouldn’t be interested in
going up to the stadium and disrupting this cer¬
emony.

He said, “Well, that’s what we’re going to
do, and you can make your own decision about
that.” He said many arm bands had been made
and [peace-] signed and that the students were
going to meet down in the Manzanita Bowl.

I said it seemed to me that it would be more
useful to have a counter-demonstration such as
they had had the year before, which I thought was
fairly successful—several hundred students down
in the Manzanita Bowl. As a matter of fact, ac¬
cording to the student newspaper of May 1969,
the peace rally had drawn more people than the
Governor’s Day ceremony. And this seemed to
me to be a success.

He said, “Well, that’s not enough. We’re go¬
ing to go up and bust up the thing.”

At that point, it was brought to my attention
somehow or other—I’ve forgotten how—that the
governor had arrived on the campus and was in
the Jot Travis Union. And I decided then to walk
upstairs and speak to N. Edd Miller and perhaps
to the governor and suggest to them that they ac¬
knowledge the mood that the students were in.

ROBERT D. HARVEY

163

That is to say, not speak to the students necessar¬
ily, but add some remarks at the stadium which
would acknowledge the historical events of the
Cambodian decision and what I regard as the mas¬
sacre at Kent State.

I went up there, and when I got up there, I
found the room full of brass—a great many uni¬
forms—and some ladies. It was like some nine¬
teenth century military tea. I walked in, and I felt
very uncomfortable in this room. I went to the
president, who was speaking to Procter Hug, and
I rather abruptly interrupted them and stated my
grievance and asked them if they would respond
to this situation. I then added that there were sev¬
eral hundred students who were very excited and
who seemed to be interested in demonstrating,
and that they were planning to march to the sta¬
dium, and that one way to handle that would be,
perhaps, to say something about Kent State.

I said, “Don’t you feel, gentlemen, don’t you
feel uncomfortable in this room? I feel very un¬
comfortable in this room on this day. Here we
are very concerned about peace, very concerned
about the military, and very concerned about re¬
pression in this country—and here we are stand¬
ing around with cups of coffee and tea in our
hands, talking to people in uniform.” At this point,
someone came up to President Miller, and he
turned away without responding to me.

Procter Hug (whom I’ve met many times, and
he knows who I am, as, of course, the president
does) turned to me and said, “What do you mean?
What do you want me to do? What is this all
about?” I tried to explain to him what it was all
about, repeating what I’d just said. He said he
was most fascinated, most interested and curi¬
ous, and very honest with me. It was clear to me
that he was aware that I really did have some¬
thing on my mind, but he didn’t know what to do
about it.

So, as he hesitated, I then said, “Is the gover¬
nor in the room?”

He said, “Yes, he’s over there.”

I said, “I’ve never met him.”

I waited for a moment, and Mr. Hug made no
move, and so I said, “I’m going to go over and

talk to the governor.” So, I went over and intro¬
duced myself to the governor, who was talking
to Frankie Sue Del Papa, and told him who I was.
I said, “This is going to sound a little strange,
perhaps. You don’t know me. But there are two-
hundred-fifty, three-hundred students who are
interested in demonstrating against the Cambo¬
dian decision and against the massacre at Kent
State. And although it’s not my part to tell you
how to respond to historical events, Mr. Laxalt,
if I may suggest, I think it would be an extremely
useful thing if you would add a couple of remarks
to your speech this morning, acknowledging the
kind of emotion that some people are undergoing
with respect to the Kent massacre and the Cam¬
bodian decision, particularly, on a day honoring
the military.”

He said, “I’m not making a speech.”

I said, “Well, then, make a speech.”

He then looked at me very closely, put his
hands up in front of his body, waved them back
and forth, and said, “No way. No way. My friend
Governor Rhodes of Ohio is running for the Sen¬
ate nomination today, and I'm not going to em¬
barrass him in any way. I don’t want any story
going out on the national wire from Nevada that
would embarrass him.”

I said, “I’m disappointed, Governor. I can
understand why you might not respond to me,
but I think you’re making a mistake.” He smiled,
and I smiled. And I left.

I then went downstairs and discovered that
the students were moving down to the Manza-
nita Bowl. So, I went down there and I met, oh,
probably eighty or a hundred students who were
there. There was some sound equipment which
was not functioning, and many people were wear¬
ing striped arm bands now with the peace sym¬
bol on them. And I met James Hulse. Now, this
was very reassuring to me. Hulse is a good friend
of mine and a very stable character. We sat on the
grass for a few minutes, and several students were
raising questions as to what they should do.

Several students said, “Let’s pick it up and
go up to the stadium,” and several questions were
raised. “What shall we do when we get to the

164

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

stadium? Shall we pick up a stone?” And there
was a chorus of no’s. They should not pick up a
stone.

Two or three students, and also Professor
Adamian, said, “We have talked about it enough.
Let’s go.” And suddenly, people started moving.

Hulse looked at me and said, “I think we
ought to say something.”

I got up and said, “Do you really want to dis¬
rupt this service, this ceremony, or do you want
to counter-demonstrate down here?” There were
several voices on both sides, but the crowd by
this time was moving, so we followed the crowd.
And as we walked up past the administration
building and the humanities building, we found
a number of cars lined up to take people from the
reception at the Jot Travis Union up to the sta¬
dium.

Mr. Hulse and I were in the rear, and we dis¬
covered immediately that there was a movement
to stop this procession. We were walking in, oh,
you know, a fairly dignified way past these cars,
and I was practically opposite the door of the
union before I realized that there was some effort
to block the motorcade. I passed the marshal of
the university [Alex Dandini], also a friend of
mine, and he was looking very grim indeed. I
smiled and nodded to him as we went by. Then, I
made the discovery that the motorcade was be¬
ing blocked, that the students were pushing on
the cars and what-have-you, getting in between
the cars, and lying down so as to prevent their
movement.

And I, then, along with several other people,
including at one point Mr. Adamian, tided to pull
students away from the cars. We physically
grabbed several students by the wrists or the anus
and pulled them up if they were sitting down and
pushed them away from the cars and said, “Don’t
block the motorcade. Don’t block these cars.”

We then got to the head of the procession,
where the cars had been moving for a few feet
and then stopped by the pressure of many bodies
around the car. At this point, we were between
Lincoln Hall and the library, and it was a very
naiTow place—a place where they could easily

block the cars. By this time, people were shout¬
ing, and the students were pounding on the roofs
of the cars. Several students had jumped up on
the hoods of a couple of the cars. And it occurred
to me that to be in a car, with so much noise and
pounding and so many people pressing, might be
a somewhat terrifying experience.

One boy, Tom Myers (a history graduate stu¬
dent, I believe), was up on the hood of the front
car. I didn’t hear what he was saying. I thought
he was demonstrating. According to Mr. Hulse,
he had jumped up in order to get enough atten¬
tion to tell people to get away from the car. At
any rate, a military officer [Robert Hill] got out
of the cai', grabbed him by the back of the belt,
the small of the back, and yanked him unceremo¬
niously off the car. Tom Myers is a large boy (and
the military officer was also a well-built gentle¬
man) and did not like being handled this way and
felt, no doubt, that he was misunderstood.

At that point, I and Mr. Maher (a graduate
student in the English Department) jumped be¬
tween these two men and pushed them away from
each other. They were about to trade blows. The
noise was deafening, and this formed a kind of
hypnotic response in people at this point. The
noise bouncing off the walls of the library and
Lincoln Hall was kind of an echo chamber there.

In any case, the students then did get away
from the cars. Most of the rest of the cars had
apparently turned around and gone off to the
south, and there were only two or three cars be¬
ing blocked, and we waved the cars on through
and then continued.

Now, they were somewhat frightened as what
might happen as the thing went on. Mr. Hulse
and I continued to walk with the students up to
the stadium. Now, there was a considerable
amount of high spirits, but no actions were taken
that anyone could object to as we went up to the
stadium. Mr. Hulse, meanwhile, had talked to
Procter Hug and had told me as we walked up
there that he had done so, and that Procter Hug
had suggested that it would be all right if the stu¬
dents would walk three times around the stadium
track. And it was ambiguous whether he meant

ROBERT D. HARVEY

165

that then they should leave the stadium, or
whether they should sit down in the stands some¬
where. I never understood that. Mr. Hulse later
told me that he understood Procter Hug to say
that they should march around three times and
then get out.

So. we entered the stadium. The troops were
standing at parade rest, near the east side of the
stadium and facing the western stand. The
governor’s car and what-have-you had arrived.
All the dignitaries were in their boxes with a very
small crowd and the president of the university.
As we came in some 300 strong, marching four
abreast, we realized that there were more of us
than there were of them. I think at that point—
perhaps, perhaps not—it occurred to many there
that it was their stadium, and it was going to be
their ceremony and no one else’s.

We then marched up north past the stands
and continued in a clockwise fashion around the
Pack twice, and not three times. As they passed
the flagpole at the north end, some students were
carrying a peace flag—a large blue flag with the
peace symbol on it—and they decided to run up
the peace flag. Now, I thought there was a flag at
the top of the pole, and I was about to stop them,
because I had the notion that they were going to
run down the American flag and put up the peace
flag. And I looked at the pole, and I can’t tell you
how charmed I was to discover there was noth¬
ing at the top of the pole. So I then continued
near the front of the procession, and the students
fried to figure out how to attach a flag to a rope—
and weren’t able to solve that knotty problem.

We then continued down the east side, mov¬
ing now southerly, and there was considerable
interest among the students. They were quite rau¬
cous, shouting cat calls and what-have-you to
move off the track and start messing up the mili¬
tary formation of the cadets. I think many of us—
I, Fred Maher, Adamian himself, and several oth¬
ers—were instrumental in preventing the dem¬
onstrators from leaving the track. It seemed to
me that, at any time, if one were able simply to
look at some excited demonstrator and ask him
what he was doing, that he pretty quickly sobered
up.

We continued then to the southern end of the
field, where it became clear to some that there
was indeed a flag in front of whatever the build¬
ing is south of the stadium [ Hartman Hall], and
another flagpole flying the American flag. It oc¬
curred to some to go down and take down the
flag. I then commented, “Well, you’re going to
have me to fight if you try that.” And it was prob¬
ably simply a wayward thought anyway, but this
was not done. No one went down there.

We then continued around, marched again
past the reviewing stand and completed another
circle of the whole track. As we were coming in
a southerly direction a second time, they were
thinking now of going into the stands, and it oc¬
curred to some of us to move people into the
stands on that [east] side of the stadium—and
keep them out of the crowd that had come for the
ceremony. It was pointed out by several that this
would have the virtue of separating people, but it
would also have the reverse of virtue in polariz¬
ing the people in the stadium. It would be better
to get everybody mixed up with each other and
not have two cheering factions, more or less, on
opposite sides of the field. So, we did not move
into the eastern stands.

We came around, and walked up and sat in
the stands. We moved up behind the people who
had come for the ceremony, behind the dignitar¬
ies. There was a roped-off area which was empty,
and so demonstrators stepped over the ropes and
moved in there. There was no question but that
there were more demonstrators than people al¬
ready sitting in the stands.

Then the ceremony began, and as the cer¬
emony began, there was no recognition on the
part of the people running the ceremony that any¬
thing strange or untoward had already hap¬
pened—either in Cambodia or in Washington or
at Kent State or, indeed, earlier on in the stadium.
It was as though we were in a vacuum. Many
persons felt very upset that they were given no
chance to alter the nature of the program. They
certainly had already altered the nature of the
experience of Governor’s Day, but they wanted
some feedback. They wanted something from the
people who were running the ceremony. They

166

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

wanted the governor to say something. I’m sure.
They wanted the president to say something.

So, they got noisy. And, of course, they ap¬
plied the dialect of the young, which is to say,
twelve-letter words. And, of course, some of the
dignitaries’ ladies found their sensibilities some¬
what annoyed by these goings-on. It wasn’t sim¬
ply, however, cat-calls. The students had decided
that they were, indeed, going to take over the cer¬
emony, and so they sang songs. I thought they
were a fairly good-mannered—not well-man¬
nered crowd, but a good-humored crowd. They
were not in an ugly mood. They did not want vio¬
lence now at all, indeed, if they ever had. Their
actions were theatrical and symbolic.

They wanted to take down the flag earlier on
and trample on it and run up their flag. This would
have been a symbolic act. It did not occur. Dur¬
ing the ceremony, they wanted to take the
ceremony’s meaning and reverse it. The
ceremony’s meaning was to praise cadets for
military efficiency and other virtues, and what
these people wanted to do was to damn them for
those very virtues, or to make clear that, in their
opinion, these were not virtues but sins of one
sort or another—“A good soldier is a dead sol¬
dier.” So, they sang—they mocked. They sang
“Onward Christian Soldiers” and drowned out the
young officer or cadet, whoever he was, who was
reading the entire program. No change was made
in the program.

The only interruption by the people in charge
of the ceremony was one by the president of the
university, who finally decided to get up and say,
“I ask you now to behave yourselves and to al¬
low the ceremony to proceed. I think you are be¬
ing very ill-mannered”—and that sort of thing.
But there was no attempt on anyone’s part man¬
aging the ceremony to give any genuine acknowl¬
edgment to the feelings of the demonstrators.

Incidentally, several of the faculty were now
acting, although without any official capacity, as
monitors—Mr. Backman, Mr. Hulse, I, Mr.
Richardson (Sociology Department), and Ben
Hazard (Art Department, a very visible man). We
were trying to make ourselves very visible to stu¬

dents and constantly talking with different stu¬
dents and saying, “Let’s keep it cool. Let’s keep
it cool.”

Meanwhile, a small group of black students—
ten or fifteen black students—had decided to be
provocative. They did not come up and sit in the
stands. They sat on the edge of the grass a short
distance south of the reviewing stand or the dig¬
nitaries’ box, but on the playing field within the
oval track. And they set up a certain amount of
cat-calling down there and asked other demon¬
strators to, “Come join us. Come join us.” By
ones and twos, they did.

I’d say that the one provocative act that Mr.
Adamian did make during the day was not made
at this time.

Mr. Adamian, who was sitting and standing
near me, suddenly tore himself away from me
and said, “Let’s go down on the field and set up a
kind of a cheerleader’s rally cry.” With the mo¬
tions of his arms and shouting very loudly, he ran
down the steps onto the center track and across.
No one followed him at that time. I shouted after
him, “Paul, Paul, don’t be foolish!” And across
the way he went.

We attempted to keep people cool. We also
attempted, as the movement began to go down
into the field by ones and twos to prevent that, to
ask people to stay in the stands and not mix it up
in the field. We were unsuccessful in this. Dur¬
ing the next half an hour or so, it was unbeliev¬
able to us (to Mr. Hulse, to me, and to several of
the faculty who were acting as monitors more or
less) that they did not truncate the proceeding.
We had no idea how long we could hold these
people, and we knew that they were students. We
knew that they were very angry, and we were
charmed whenever they acted in what seemed to
us to be, however outrageous, in high spirits, in
good spirits.

But as I say, in small groups, people were
drifting out of the stands now and going down
onto the field. And we thought this might be an¬
other potentially ugly situation. Finally, it became
clear that there were many more people down on
the field than there were in the stands, and so Mr.

ROBERT D. HARVEY

167

Hulse and I decided to join them. We then walked
down across, actually, the same track as Mr.
Adamian, and tried to prevent the people on the
field from getting close to the drill squad.

By this time, all the awards had been pre¬
sented and we’d had a little marching among the
cadet formations. There was one march in par¬
ticular, now with fixed bayonets, and they were
going to do a monkey drill. This involved dis¬
playing their rifles and marching back and forth
in formation. There were now at least 200 stu¬
dents on the field—and not in contact with this
[ROTC] group, but more or less drifting toward
them.

At this point, Mr. Hulse decided that he would
separate himself from us and went back and sat
in the stands. We now were standing with our
arms outstretched, gesturing with our arms for
people to sit down—Mr. Hazard, Mr. Adamian,
Mr. Backman, and Mr. Richardson (these are the

people I remember; there may have been others,
perhaps Crowley, but I’ve forgotten). When I first
said this, half of them sat down. I was struck at,
you know, what a position of authority we really
did have, however momentarily.

So, we now had half of them sitting down
and half of them standing up and still drifting,
wanting to be provocative. Meanwhile, the boys
with the bayonets did march, and as they marched
toward us, people began to get up again, and they
wanted an encounter.

At one point, Mr. Adamian shouted at me,
“Harvey, look out!” because I was about to be
skewered by a bayonet. I turned around, and by
that time, the military boy in formation had al¬
ready received the order to turn around to about-
face, and he was doing so. (It seems to me at this
stage of the proceedings that Mr. Adamian was
thoroughly with us in attempting to prevent any
encounters—as earlier he had not been.)

“With the motions of his arms and shouting very loudly, [Mr. Adamian] ran down the steps onto the center track
and across. ”

168

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Finally, the groups of cadets formed up and
started marching at the far side of the track, now
in a counterclockwise direction marching north
on the east side, and they would then pass around
and march south past the reviewing stand and out
of the stadium. We then formed behind them with
no break, shouted our slogans, and made our ges¬
tures. So, the military contingent and the demon¬
strators’ contingent were all one vast procession
which walked out of the stadium.

As we walked out of the stadium, they seemed
to have made it. There was a great deal of relief
in everyone’s hearts that nothing further had hap¬
pened, that no heads had been broken, and no
police had been called in. We then discovered
that the police indeed were there, and that they
had, apparently, had orders to stay out of sight.
There were several police, with helmets and what-
have-you and sticks, down over the rise of the
entrance to the stadium. It seemed to us that not
only had we been fairly intelligent, and that the
demonstrators had been fairly good humored, but
that the president had been wise in having police
there and not ordering them into the stadium.

So, that’s what happened on Governor’s Day,
at least at the stadium. I should add about the
whole demonstration that I’ve described that it
was, in my view, spontaneous. No one led it. I
referred to a number of the faculty as being in¬
formal monitors. As I say, I didn’t even know
there was Governor’s Day at 9:00 that morning,
and I’d say that most of the faculty that were in¬
volved were involved after the fact. There was a
spontaneous fact in that the actions which took
place were spontaneous.

Later on, there were meetings—endless, end¬
less meetings at all times. You want to hear about
all that more?

The next question is your reaction to the violence
that followed Governor’s Day.

Well, there were two violent acts, I guess.
There was a great deal of talk Tuesday afternoon
about shutting down the place. Again, it seems,
to me that this was more reaction to the feeling

that the authorities were not responding to and
not acknowledging the feelings of several hun¬
dred demonstrators.

During the moratorium in October or Novem¬
ber, the President of the United States had said
that no demonstrators would change his policy,
that no demonstration would alter his policy, and
this seemed, in effect, a provocative act to many
people interested in demonstrating. The Consti¬
tution guarantees to the American citizen a right
to petition and to a redress of grievances and what-
have-you, and of course the notion is that peti¬
tions will redress grievances. The force of the
feeling behind petitions and demonstrations and
what-have-you, that they will at least be acknowl¬
edged, was ignored.

The feeling on Tuesday afternoon in small
groups here and there among students and some
professors, was that the university authorities
were stupid—that they should acknowledge them.
Ultimately, they did, I suppose, in a way, when it
became clear to President Miller that there was
interest in striking in the university and shutting
it down. He then stated that attendance of classes
on Friday—the day of the national memorials for
the Kent students—would not be mandatory, and
that no action would be taken against faculty or
students who failed to attend classes that day. (It
has come to my attention that there has, in fact,
been some attempt on the paid of a couple of pro¬
fessors to penalize students who didn’t turn up
that day, even after the president. . .).

At any rate, it seems to me that announce¬
ment, which came very, very late (as I recall, it
came Thursday morning) was the first genuine,
public response of the president to the force of
this kind of emotion. I thought he was slow. I
thought he should have reacted very openly
Wednesday morning. He wasn’t ready to do so.
Of course, the pressure that he’s under is not the
pressure that I’m under.

Anyhow, Tuesday afternoon, there were some
speeches down in the Manzanita Bowl, and there
was a group of gentlemen. Mr. Hulse, I believe,
organized this group and met over in the Center
Tuesday afternoon with students and faculty, to

ROBERT D. HARVEY

169

try to get some notion as to what further actions
might be taken, and what sorts of things might be
planned or be spontaneously engaged in.

Now, there was talk Tuesday afternoon—Mr.
Hulse raised the question that maybe we ought to
reorganize the peace group. I was out of the coun¬
try in 1968 when Eugene McCarthy’s campaign
got going. Mr. Hulse was a delegate at the Demo¬
cratic convention in Chicago that summer and had
been an active worker for Senator McCarthy and
had been involved with [the Northern Nevada
Peace Group]. When McCarthy’s campaign col¬
lapsed, the peace group collapsed. What Mr.
Hulse was suggesting in May 1970 was perhaps
reorganizing this in order to provide an outlet for
the kinds of feelings that so many people seemed
to be having. This struck a number of persons at
the meeting Tuesday afternoon as foolish. “Oh,
another goddamn committee. What we want is
action! What we want to do is shut the goddamn
place down!” And once again, the dialect came
on. We had some wonderful, flavorful twelve-
letter adjectives about the word “University of
Nevada.”

Once or twice, one heard the expression,
“Well, I wouldn’t be sorry if I woke up tomorrow
morning and the goddamn ROTC was ashes.” I'd
say that this, again, was theatrical, symbolic as¬
sertion. Nevertheless, Wednesday night, the place
was bombed (at least I guess it was Wednesday
night, wasn’t it? I can’t remember for sure. I’m
confused now as to when the two bombings took
place. I guess one of them must have taken place
early Wednesday morning and the other one must
have taken place, what—Thursday? I can’t re¬
member ). 1

Anyway, [Wednesday] was a long day. There
was a certain amount of interruption of classes.
Even on that day, I attended my classes. On
[Wednesday], I had scratched a three hour semi¬
nar from 12:00 to 3:00 that day in order to be
present at what seemed to me to be interesting,
perhaps important, goings-on. And I’d gone to
my class at 10:00 and my class at 12:00. There
was great pressure among students to talk about
what had happened the day before on [Tuesday],

and I allowed this for about half a period in the
10:00 class and did not allow it in the 12:00 class,
which was a class of senior undergraduates and a
couple of graduate students. Instead, I told those
people that they would have the opportunity to
go to a memorial service on Friday at 12:00, and
I told the 10:00 class that if they wanted to meet,
I would meet the class on Friday, and we could
decide then what we wanted to talk about.

To get back to the Tuesday afternoon, noth¬
ing very decisive was concluded at that time ex¬
cept that someone did come in from the ticker
tape in the Mackay Social Science Journalism
Department, which stated that somebody, some
peace group in Washington, had sent out on a
national wire the notion that there would be a
candle-lit march or candlelight ceremony of some
sort on Thursday evening and memorial services
on all campuses throughout the country at 12:00
Friday. We then started to plan.

The only thing that did come out of this Tues¬
day meeting was the plan to have, indeed, a
candlelight ceremony on Thursday evening in
Manzanita Bowl and have a memorial service on
Friday. Two committees were formed, then, out
of the people present to talk to speakers, people
who might speak at either one of these. And I
suggested that Bill Thornton might wish to speak,
and that maybe Larry Hyde would speak.

By this time, it was clear to me that there
was going to be quite a reaction in the commu¬
nity, undoubtedly because of the response of some
of the dignitaries in the stadium. It was clear to
me on the march up and while there that there
was going to be quite a reaction to what was go¬
ing on in the campus, and undoubtedly it would
be misunderstood or overreacted to. It was clear
to me that it would be a good thing to have some
community people identified with the memorial
services. So, that evening the committees met and
worked out what sorts of people we would like
to have. Then and there at the Center that evening,
Tuesday evening, we made several phone calls
and got George Herman, Frankie Sue Del Papa
(who sent a substitute because she was going to
go to the regents’ meeting in Elko), Larry Hyde,
and Bill Thornton.

170

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

I called Thornton and asked him if he would
like to take part in this, and he said, as a matter of
fact, he was very deeply moved by the Cambo¬
dian venture and the Kent State killings and was
thinking of establishing a peace chair, offering
peace prizes on Governor’s Day—not just mili¬
tary prizes, but peace prizes also. Ultimately, he
didn’t make this announcement on Friday.

Anyhow, Ken Carpenter and I were talking
to each other after this meeting Tuesday, and we
decided that we would go to the president and
ask him to make some announcement. So, we met
and talked to him very early Wednesday morn¬
ing. Well, Wednesday and Thursday there were
many, many meetings of various factions of stu¬
dents. There was an effort on the part of the
deans—apparently at the direction of the presi¬
dent—to suggest that faculty be present at these
meetings where everything might take place. So,
at numerous times, I found myself meeting Jim
Hulse or meeting Ken Carpenter and going and
healing the same arguments. It got to be boring
insofar as an intellectual experience, but it was
always interesting as an emotional one. And as
theater, it was curious and fascinating to hear
people who obviously didn’t like each other ac¬
tually listening to each other—for the time be¬
ing, anyway. John Dodson, it seems to me, was
absolutely marvelous as a master of ceremonies
or a moderator for a couple of these. Fie man¬
aged to keep people cool and allow for various
views to be expressed.

The second bombing struck me as thoroughly
predictable, and of course, it occurred to me and
others that both of them were done by the same
people. I haven’t the slightest idea who commit¬
ted either one of these outrages, and I regal'd them
as outrages, even though no loss of life was made.
I was, however, fascinated at the notion, too. And
many, many, many of the students, of course, were
fascinated at the response to the bombings in the
community. In the minds of the community, both
bombings were caused by peace demonstrators,
and if there hadn’t been any demonstration, there
wouldn’t have been any bombings. Therefore, the
demonstrators were responsible for them. Maybe

that’s true. I don’t think it helps. The intensity of
the reaction to the dynamite thrown against a wall,
it seemed to me, was curiously greater than the
intents of many minds, many hearts—curiously
greater than the intensity of reaction to the feel¬
ings of most students: “Oh, life and property.”
So much for the violence.

Of course, there was some physical violence
fairly muted, I thought. A lot more talk about it.
Well, actually, what I heard was pretty much on
the cowboy side as it became identified. The view
of the conservative agriculture students was, “All
right, you hippies have pushed us far enough.
We’ve tried to come half way to you, and what
we’re going to do if you keep the pressure on is
take your pants off, cut your hair, and throw you
in the lake.” There was a little of that. I don’t
think anyone was actually thrown in the lake, but
there was a certain amount of pushing and shov¬
ing and a little strong-arm here and there. But
nothing important. (More on violence? I have
nothing else.)

You had just mentioned something about the
university’s image or reputation with outsiders.
How do you think events on campus do affect this?

This is a very conservative state, and I think
this is a very anxious country that we’re living
in—a very anxiety-provoking time. Some people
think that the mood of the country is very, very
bad—I’m inclined not to think so; maybe I’m
mistaken—and that we’re in for a long repres¬
sion, the kind that Americans who are now alive
don’t remember at all, and have no notion of. I
hope that isn’t so, and I’m inclined not to think
so.

The way I view it is that the country is very
anxious. They want leadership, and they want the
end of the war and that sort of thing, and they
hate the notion that their president is not going to
get them out of this, that he’s not going to be a
good leader. They are frightened by people who
have already decided that he isn’t a good leader,
and therefore, they are inclined to want to rally
behind him. I think the intensity with which they

ROBERT D. HARVEY

171

do so, the “silent majority” and all, is a measure
of their anxiety that maybe things really are worse
than we’d like to think in this country.

Bring this down to the University of Nevada.
I think the reaction of the state is theatrical. Again,
I don’t think that people rationally believe that
the university is in the hands of communists, but
I think that they do wish to prevent the university
from becoming another Berkeley, as they say.
They don’t want those things to happen here. And
it’s like the agriculture school, you know. The
agriculture students really don’t believe that Pro¬
fessor Adamian or Professor Harvey or Profes¬
sor Hulse are communists—of course, they did
talk with us, and we talked with them. Nor do
they think that the long-haired students are, you
know, some evil breed. When they actually sit
down and talk to them, it becomes evident that
they don’t really feel that. Nevertheless, it be¬
comes a very simple matter to solve their prob¬
lems and their anxieties by symbolic or theatri¬
cal means. And I think that that’s what the com¬
munity has been doing to the university.

Now, it may be that a person like the Vice
President of the United States or a person like
Senator Slattery genuinely does have these feel¬
ings that demonstrators arc bad people, and that
they must be put down. I think it’s quite clear
that Senator Slattery here is a man of no conse¬
quence in the state of Nevada, but I’ve been here
for eight years, and several times I’ve seen him
(or heard him, rather) rally a kind of rampant pro¬
letariat foolishness. Apparently, the meeting of
the regents in Elko on Friday and Saturday was
fairly wild. I wasn’t there, but I listened, and they
wanted blood. They wanted a scapegoat. They
wanted to be able to turn to the community and
say, “Don’t you see? We’re taking care of this.”

Of course, at the same time, that’s exactly
what the president wanted to say to the regents,
that, “It’s all right. You don’t have to step in here.
The great majority of our faculty and students
and the administration itself is intelligently aware
of the situation. Please do not overreact.”

So, it’s a chain of this sort of thing as you
move from one level of authority to another. I

felt on Tuesday that if the authorities had made a
couple of moves, that the whole thing could have
been prevented. They chose not to do so, and they
had them reasons. What did happen wasn’t as bad,
by a long shot, as to what could have been. And
to a large degree, this was due to self-policing on
the part of many students and many faculty. On
Wednesday, and Thursday, and Friday, same
thing.

Finally, by Thursday, the president of the
university was moving himself to ... . I think a
certain amount of any of these persons’ moves is
in response, again, to imagined moves elsewhere:
in the regents, in the community. “Downtown”
became quite a frightening phrase, and in some
respects, still is a somewhat frightening phrase.
Simply on a personal level, I could illustrate that
with a party that had nothing to do with the uni¬
versity, really, at all. An elderly professor was
celebrating a twenty-fifth wedding anniversary
on this Saturday—this was two or three weeks
after the event.

The marshal of the university [Alex Dandini]
was present at this party. And he had had no par¬
ticular occasion to speak to me since the events.
But it was clear to me that he had, at that time,
been confused and inclined to take the view that
Professor Harvey, after all, was a communist. At
this party, he came up to me, shook my hand,
looked deep into my eyes, and said, “You’re
clear'.”

Now, the marshal of the university is, it seems
to me, a man of mature years and a man of no
particular power with respect to the state of Ne¬
vada, or the regents of the University of Nevada.
Nevertheless, he felt that he should do this—he
should tell me, in effect, that an investigation had
been made, and that I was all right. This struck
me as a measure of a kind of insanity that’s going
on, and I don’t know how serious that is.

I just don’t know. I’ve been here eight years;
I have tenure, and I have several responsible po¬
sitions. The president is a good friend of mine. I
think we understand each other. I’m very fond of
him—I have very strong confidence in him. I’d
hate to find that there really is a repression in the

172

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

offing, and that his job is in danger, or that he’s
in any danger. If he is, we all are, it seems to me.

I don’t know much of the regents. I know the
two Reno regents quite well, Dr. Anderson and
Procter Hug, and I respect them. I think they’re
intelligent, and according to their likes, they
move, they take action. At the moment. I’m some¬
what disappointed with Mr. Hug’s recent actions.
It seems to me, nevertheless, that this may be a
measure—according to his likes, at any rate—of
the strength of the feeling of the community at
large, which is negative to the university. I think
that his motive, however naive, was defensive in
this recent action to inteipose his authority be¬
tween the community and the university. I think
it was mistaken. It was an attempt to nudge the
university into taking some action which he felt
the community wanted and would otherwise im¬
pose.

Now, of course, at the same time, it seems to
me that he is, in effect, imposing it. So, I don’t
know. I think that if his motive was bold (and
I’m sure it was), that it was foolish. That’s a mea¬
sure of where we are. It seems to me a failure of
communication between this university and the
community at large. I don’t know what the com¬
munity, what the populous of the state of Nevada
thinks a university is.

We were all thunderstruck by President
Nixon’s going out in the morning and talking to
some college students and saying, “What school
are you from?” And a student would respond, and
he’d say, “Oh, yes. How is your football team?”
and that sort of thing. Now, the President of the
United States is a member of the silent majority,
it would appear, and has some of the same curi¬
ous notions of what a university is that “down¬
town” seems to have. It may be that we’re in for
some bad misunderstanding between the taxpay¬
ers of the state who support this university and
the people who are engaged in making this a pro¬
ductive place. Of course, if the university is a
place for social change, and if the populous pays
the taxes and doesn’t want this change, then there
will be further clashes—no question about it.

Do you feel that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participating in demonstrations?

Very much so. And I know that this is a con¬
troversial subject. There are many faculty mem¬
bers here with whom I’ve talked, who feel that
our basic function is to teach our classes, period.
Mr. Maher and Mr. Adamian are both charged
with activities regarded as improper, and maybe
they are improper. Maybe they committed these
activities. I don’t know. But I certainly wouldn’t
want to prejudice that situation.

In my view, a university necessarily is a place
to create knowledge, to transmit knowledge, and
to bring together informed opinions. It’s a place
that has its being with respect to some intellec¬
tual values. It also is a place that has its being
because two generations, at least, of human be¬
ings are involved in these activities—basically,
intellectual activities. When you get these groups
of people into a geographical location with the
purpose of discovering and transmitting knowl¬
edge, you also have, of course, a polis—a politi¬
cal body, a body of human beings, a community.
In this state, because the university is the only
institution of higher learning in the state, and fur¬
ther, because it is a state university, the univer¬
sity community becomes a kind of microcosm of
movement in the thought in the state. This is true,
of course, of any university, but it’s perhaps some¬
what more isolated, somewhat more focused upon
in the state of Nevada since it is the only institu¬
tion of higher learning, and because it is a public
tax-supported institution.

Now then, it seems to me that the intellec¬
tual and political life of the state necessarily has
a forum in the university community. Therefore,
issues must be dramatized at the university. And
some of these issues will be narrowly considered
political issues. I think it is absolutely necessary
that lines be preserved by which the act of com¬
munication and transmission—the kind of dis¬
cussions of issues between adults and young
people, that kind of community—needs to be pro¬
tected and allowed to have its proper function.

ROBERT D. HARVEY

173

Now, there is a point at which advocacy of
particular movements impinges upon the aca¬
demic freedom to move from discussion to advo¬
cacy. That, of course, is where the whole so-called
university movement got started at Berkeley in
1964 with the free speech movement. The whole
issue in 1964 in the fall at Berkeley was the ques¬
tion of whether or not state campus people could
advocate certain lines of political activity. It was
shocking to some people that this should be asked
for or defended as proper at a university, particu¬
larly a state university.

I think we are now running into something
of the same thing six years later at the University
of Nevada. It is felt very deeply by some profes¬
sors and some students—by no means a majority
of either—that advocacy of particular lines of
political activity, as well as simple discussion of
issues, is part of academic freedom. In my view,
it is, and I think it should be defended. In the
views of some—many, I'd say, and I suspect a
majority even of the faculty—this becomes a very,
very highly controversial situation. In their minds,
advocacy upon campus becomes indoctrination
or propagandizing. It can become those things,
and I would fight that, too.

I think that what I'm interested in, what I see
as academic freedom is the freedom to discuss
and advocate different views. But this is anxiety-
producing. It's very upsetting to the people who,
of course, are by themselves advocating a par¬
ticular view, and they would prefer not to have
any other view advocated.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed?

I’d like to see it headed into political activ¬
ity. There’s been some talk. As a matter of fact,
during the week of the trouble a friend of mine in
political science from the University of Califor¬
nia at Riverside was on a sabbatical leave writ¬
ing a book in Berkeley, and he came up here to
talk to some friends he had here. This situation
turned up, and I chatted with this gentleman. He
said that there is quite an organized effort, par¬

ticularly in various branches of the University of
California—I’ve forgotten what the word was
now—but the idea is to take over and discuss the
peace issue in classes, regardless of the supposed
content of the classes. One will not take Ameri¬
can literature. One will sign-up, register for these
courses, and when one gets there, what one will
get will be lectures on Vietnam and that sort of
thing. This more or less shocked me. So, you see,
I’m more conservative than this man on that point.

There has also been talk of the analogy of
the old days when they used to release students
from school in order to get in the crops—to re¬
lease students in the last two weeks of October,
say, for political activity, to not require attendance
of classes, or even to shut down, dismiss classes
for a two-or-three-week period and let them do
political activity for candidates of their choice.
There’s also talk about lowering the voting age
from twenty-one to twenty, or nineteen or eigh¬
teen. By the looks of the Oregon vote lately, that’s
not going to happen, at least not this year.

I would hope that the peace movement on
this campus was politicized in a sense that they
decided to get off the streets. It seems to me that
demonstrations are now a cliche, and I think that
the events on this campus in the last month have
indicated that this is so. People do not listen to
the demonstration. They see it as a familiar bit of
theater, more or less, and are frightened by it. I
think small group activity is, in effect, how the
situation was contained on this campus: stopping
mass action and getting people into smaller
groups so that they could face each other and dis¬
cover that all sides were human. That’s the way
to do it.

Now, it seems to me that banners, rallies, slo¬
gans, and what-have-you—mass action—only
occurs when there is no response from authority,
when large numbers of frustrated people get the
notion that no one’s listening to them and doesn’t
care what they think or feel. One way to over¬
come that is, of course, to organize small groups
and send out small groups to talk to people. I mean
quite small groups—five or ten. If these groups
are organized, and if they do engage in a kind of

174

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

a political canvas, in the attempt to proselytize
for certain candidates or certain issues during this
election year, I think that would be proper activ¬
ity. I hope that it goes that way. However, I'm not
talking to them about the result of such action.
The notion of the state is very likely to return a
very conservative vote.

Do you have any other comments you ’cl like to
make about this whole situation?

No, I don't think so. I think I’ve kind of run
out of gas.

Note

1. The chronology is a bit confused here. Meetings
were held all week, but the meetings referred to here
in the interview as taking place on “Tuesday” appear
to be a combination of events from meetings that took
place on Tuesday and Wednesday. President Miller
made an announcement at 5 p.m. on Wednesday
evening. Hartman Hall was firebombed in the early
hours of Thursday morning. The second firebombing,
on the Hobbit Hole, took place the next Monday morn¬
ing, on May 12, 1970. Emendations have been made,
where possible, but the chronology should not be con¬
sidered valid in this segment of the interview.

Benjamin A. Hazard

June 15, 1970

First, if you ’ll say your name and your residence
and your position.

Well, my name is Ben Hazard, assistant pro¬
fessor of art, University of Nevada. I reside in
Reno.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Well, because of my participation in the ac¬
tivities of Governor’s Day.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia with United States
troops?

My reaction was very much disappointment.
I’m disappointed in the fact that he took that step,
which not only enlarged the war, but also in the
philosophy behind it: as if one can go into some¬
one else’s home to shorten the war within his own-
home kind of philosophy. His justification I don’t
think was great enough, especially since the first
damage that was in that first home has never been

justified. So therefore, he’s spreading it to some¬
one else’s home. It’s turning out now that we will
leave that second home, going back into the first
home and leaving the second home now in tur¬
moil. I just don’t believe that that direction or
that philosophy is one that’s going to benefit, you
know, everyone involved, but more or less it’s a
smaller, selfish approach.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

I think there were a couple of other things
that took place just prior to our campus situation.
One was first with the Cambodia situation. Stu¬
dents on this campus, I felt, were very nonvio-
lently protesting. In fact, they were so nonvio¬
lent, the administration misunderstood it to be
consent. Then, there was the Kent killing, which
took place the day before Governor’s Day, I think.
Then the demonstration that did take place was
the following morning, in which we had a mili¬
tary day following campuses from coast to coast
being destroyed through violent methods, mainly
ROTC buildings—and again, I stood and still
didn’t join the chorus and destroy their property.

176

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

So, as a thanks for nonviolence, we have a mili¬
tary day; and to me, it was, in itself, a slap in the
face.

I’ve heard the other side stating that, “Well,
the date was already programmed. We can’t
change it.” My philosophy with any institution
or any organization, the system which governs it
is not a law or a pact situation; it’s basically a
guideline, which usually runs under the normal
circumstances: we will do this, or we should do
that. And with the Kent killing, the Cambodia
situation, and the national disturbances across the
country, this was not a day of business as usual.
But a lot of politicians and people really do not
project both sides of the coin, but constantly in¬
volved with that one side, they fail to see this;
therefore, they take the student as a threat against
their manhood rather than a question being asked
by some students, whether it be as the minority
or the majority, and give them some kind of con¬
sideration, or at least listen where you can under¬
stand.

The disturbance as it took place got a little
bit out of hand, and I do not blame the students. I
blame myself, and I blame 90 percent of the pro¬
fessors on this campus. I blame them, especially
myself, because I came from Berkeley. I’ve been
in a lot of demonstrations, and I’ve never been in
a violent or hostile demonstration. I’ve never been
in a demonstration that ran into conflict, outright
confrontation. I’ve seen them. I’ve seen people
being shot. I’ve seen them being hurt, and I’ve
seen property destroyed. I’ve seen police riding
down the street shooting out of windows of cars,
and as people were being hit, ambulances lined
up like taxicabs: one picks them up, takes off;
the next one pulls up. I’ve seen hospitals sur¬
rounded by the police where you can’t get in un¬
less you go through the police first. It hurt me so
much that I couldn’t stand it, and I finally left.
And I came here hoping to prevent that type of
situation.

But I feel like I failed because when I received
a call that those kids were getting together to plan
a demonstration for the following day, I didn’t
go and help them. I had my son, and he was re¬

ally tired, and I had to get him to bed. I didn’t
have time to get a babysitter since I had like a
thirty-minute notice. We had just gotten back from
San Francisco—from Berkeley, where I also have
a house—and he was very tired.

So, I did not go and help them organize a
peaceful demonstration consisting of monitors,
which help keep the ranks and act like a police
force of the demonstration. I didn’t seek out le¬
gal aid, to make sure there were some attorneys
there to protect the students on a legal basis, or
make sure there were medics there to make sure
that if anything did break out that medical atten¬
tion could be provided on the spot.

Then, after reading the list of professors that
signed the petitions the prior day in regards to
President Nixon’s acts from Cambodia, these pro¬
fessors were not there, either. In fact, they didn’t
even appear at the demonstration. So then you
have a bunch of young people who felt disturbed
about Cambodia and Kent, but they’re wanting
to do something to voice, nonviolently, their feel¬
ings. As young people without all the experiences
of life, they went with the only tools that they
had at their disposal. Being very young, they are
not aware of some of the implications involved,
and neither I nor these other professors were there
showing them.

When I saw the crowd jump up and get ready
to move out, then I knew I had to do something,
and I better do it fast. So, I took on a leadership
role, knowing that they would be looking, know¬
ing that they would be misinterpreting and mis¬
understanding (but they always do that, so I’ve
given up on that kind of philosophy). But my
decision was I had to do something to prevent
these kids from going through the same hell that
I’ve seen take place in Berkeley and Oakland and
across the country. So, I got out there, took a lead¬
ership position, and helped direct the crowd in
the most contained manner as possible—the most
un-mob-like. But at this time their frustration had
reached such a peak that it wasn’t a matter of
them demonstrating their feelings.

It’s almost as if you were standing next to a
friend and being held underwater, and you see

BENJAMIN A. HAZARD

111

how long you could hold your breath. You know,
we used to play these games with kids. If you’re
ready to come up for air, and you gently tap the
guy on the leg, meaning, “Listen, I’m drowning.
I can’t hold my breath any longer. Please let me
up.” You ask in a nice way, but I’m too busy look¬
ing at beautiful things around me. I don’t pay any
attention. So, you bang harder, and I still don’t.
If you looked down on the ground and found a
knife and you stabbed me in the leg, can I accuse
you of being violent? Can I accuse you of all these
other things? Or should I first accuse myself of
being so naive and so ignorant, and then take my
consequences—and then talk about the violent
actions you took, and maybe show you all the
other ways you could have approached it? But
no. These kids got so hot and so frustrated, they’re
starving for air. They’re drowning. No one is giv¬
ing them consideration.

They did march around the field. They sat in
the stands. Not President Miller nor anyone else
got up and said, “I think it’s a tragedy about what
happened at Kent State. Let’s take a moment of
silent prayer,” and then proceed on with the cer¬
emonies. No, they act as if Kent State, which was
less than twenty-four hours old, had never ex¬
isted. They act as if there was nothing happening
across the country. Business as usual. The funny
thing about it, the only students in the stands can
be counted, probably, on both hands. The rest of
the stands are filled up with parents, and then,
collectively, they didn’t amount to fifty. Then you
had the band, and you had the regents, and then
you had the officers. You did not see the students
out there.

So, one said, “Well yes, what about our boys
out on the field?”

“They were not out there because they wanted
to be out there. They were out there because they
were told to.”

“Sure,” the officers will say, “You don’t have
to be out there.”

But let them not show up. I’ve been in the
service. I spent my time and got an honorable
discharge, and not the straight honorable—I didn’t
just do my duty. Mine was above and beyond the
call of duty. I didn’t go to war; it was in peace

time. But I’m not one that just rides the wagon,
and just be nice. I’m open and honest, and I do
things to help people, and my record will show it
from my military life all the way to the present. I
won’t just be the nice guy sitting in an office,
that one nice Joe. I will go out and tty to actually
help people. I know how the military runs. You
do not ask questions; that is a mortal sin. You do
it because you’re told to.

They probably were given a choice to go out
there or not, but if they didn’t go out there, they
also would find themselves right out there on la¬
trine duty or parading the field or some other ac¬
tivity that would be very distasteful. So, if they
were really given an option, I mean they wouldn’t
be there. So the majority out there were these stu¬
dents. So these students do not represent the ma¬
jority of the campus. But the majority of the cam¬
pus also is represented by those ROTC kids who
are there because they were told to be there, and
the consequences, you know, would have been
something else. That’s why you didn’t see them
there, period.

A lot of these students, if they really did un¬
derstand, came out of some of these meetings
we’ve had following those demonstrations, fol¬
lowing the bombings. They also realized that they
were in quite a bit of agreement with what [Spiro]
Agnew called the “dirty dissidents”—it’s just that
they didn’t go for the tactics. At the same time
they also realized they did not understand the frus¬
tration which caused the action. The meeting and
puipose they went along with 100 percent, but
the exact direction they took is what Agnew calls
“the silent majority.” The majority, the vast ma¬
jority of people, I feel, are really against the war,
against the Cambodian situation, but they’re
quiet. They’re afraid to speak out.

You know, I can remember when I was young
that I was afraid to say something because I was
afraid I’d say something wrong, and I'd be
laughed at. I’d be humiliated, or I’d be degraded.
It’s something that’s very strong in a lot of our
minds until we’re trained to overcome this.

You hear them talking about the education:
“We don’t want to close the schools down.” The
students don’t want the schools closed down ei-

178

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

ther. They feel that the schools haven’t been
taught the same way that they were being taught
fifty years ago, when at that time we were train¬
ing people for skill. It was more of a Paining
school to make the nation grow. But now that we
have achieved those goals set up at that time, the
goals—once they’ve been accomplished—
changed; we have new goals. Now, the kids arc
demanding not just a training school, but a school
of education: teach you how to think, teach you
the type of alternatives available, but let you make
the alternative. But we’re not trying to do that.
You talk about getting a communist on campus.
Oh, Lord! Whole world based on why we got to
protect ours. We don’t want to give them that
choice. Well, we’re not giving that as a choice;
just let them be aware of it.

If you know that your way is right and hon¬
est and good, then why should you fear it? Why
do you feel so incompetent about it? I really feel
sorry for those flag-waving people. I am more
American, I feel, than anyone. I feel so Ameri¬
can that I don’t have to go around waving flags
so you know that I’m American. My actions, my
deeds, my words will show you that I am an
American. For one to have to raise the flag and
wave it in front of everyone else’s faces to be
secure about it.... So therefore, they must do
something to convince you that they are an Ameri¬
can. But I’m not against them. If this is the way
they feel, I think that’s good.

But I still think that the students today are
more aware of a lot of things. They are more un¬
aware of a lot of minor things. I have a young
roommate, and, you know, he’ll see a stack of
dirty dishes and won’t realize that he should clean
them up. So they’re lacking in some of the basic
moral things, but they’re very far advanced on
the national and social level. You see the students
going to long hair direction because the society
that they’ve been raised up under has projected
so much of the emphasis on materialistic things
that they get confused, and they’re now avoiding
anything materialistic. I don’t think it’s so much
that they despise beautiful hair, nice jewelry, a
fine car, or a lovely home; it’s that our trade school

method of education has taught us to value these
above all. Will your Cadillac give you the right
to kill a guy if he’s stealing the hubcaps off it?
That a guy tearing down a fence to run over it
faster can be shot to death, and no other alterna¬
tive is given—that is it, and they’re just fighting
against this kind of concept.

For Governor’s Day here, I think we should
really be very proud, under the circumstances, to
have it go as peacefully as it did. People say, “Well
gee, well, these kids don’t really understand. I
mean, they’re violating someone else’s right.” I
agree. I agree. Just like that guy who stabbed me
in the leg when I was holding him underwater.
He violated my right to stand there in the water
when he stabbed me in the leg while I was hold¬
ing him down. Now, if I wasn’t holding him down,
then we would have an argument. But, by the mere
fact that you never gave these students a chance
to listen, to say what they have to say—and when
you listened, too. President Miller says, “Yes, we
gave them rights to march on the field, and they
can give all the speeches they wanted ”—after
they left. He still wouldn’t sit there and let them
stay where they all could listen.

I’ve been able to hold the lid down on the
situation, not by being with the leftists. I don’t
go to the meetings. I don’t meet with a bunch of
black people down in ghetto village. I know how
they think, so I don’t have to go there and listen
to it over again. I know how they think, so I don’t
have to go there and give them my impression.
Our goal in the administration ... I’m sitting here
right now because of that same reason, because I
feel like I could be of better help if I know how
you think, how the institution thinks, how the
administration thinks—someone who is not nec¬
essarily black, also who is not necessarily on the
far left. Well, go see the far right guy. Figure out
why he does what he’s doing. And maybe, if I’m
open and honest enough, he will find a hole in
my philosophy or my way of thinking. And I was
able to help on both sides because of that.

There was one student who was out in the
field. He couldn’t stand just standing back there
chanting. He wanted to go up there and grab an

BENJAMIN A. HAZARD

179

ROTC guy and grab his gun from him, and I had
to stop him. I said, “What do you want to do that
for?”

He said, “I just can’t sit here and chant!”

I said, “All right. If you want to be so vio¬
lent, if you feel so dedicated, do it where it
counts.” We’re talking about choice now: I said,
“Do it where it counts. These kids out there in
the field, with their little green uniforms and their
guns, know no more about the war than you do.
They have seen no more of the war than you have.
They sit with you in your same classroom. Why
are you going to get him? If you feel so dedicated
and that your cause is so right, go over there! See,
there’s eight generals sitting in that front row. Go
grab one of them, [whispering] Beat the hell out
of them, because you know they’ve seen it.”

“If you really feel, go beat the hell out of one
of them. If that’s not strong enough, see that next
row? That far end, that’s Governor Laxalt, and
the other end is President Miller, and all these
other people like senators and all the other heav¬
ies. Go whip one of them. Beat the hell out of
one of them. If that’s not strong enough, or if that’s
too strong, then the next row is all regents, [whis¬
pering] Go grab one of them.”

“And the parents, you go grab one and beat
the hell out of one of them—if you feel so con¬
vinced that your way is right. Otherwise, get the
hell back in there and act like you’ve got some
sense.”

And, you know, I gave him the choice, but I
gave him the open and honest choice. I not only
gave him the choice of what to do, but also let
him be aware of the consequences involved,
[pounds on table twice for emphasis]

That’s why I’m against when someone says,
“Don’t have the communists come here, come
and teach, because they infiltrate the brain.”

Aw, come on. I’ve learned, because I have
gone to places where I’ve seen the communists
get up there and talk—and every time I’ve seen
them get there and talk. I’ve seen them get booed
off the stage. Never fails, because they come off
so trite. They even make some of our stereotyped
right-wing extremists look heavy. And so that’s

why I don’t worry about them. Because I know
who I am. I demanded my education, and I de¬
manded more than what they were producing. My
demand to my student, I say this: “Listen, I will
teach you the best I know how, but if you accept
everything I give you, you’re a fool, a damn fool.
You better demand more. Even though you know
I’m giving everything, demand more. Because
when you leave this classroom, that’s where it’s
going to count.

“I could be nice and treat you great inside a
class, and what in the hell is going to happen to
you when you leave this goddamn room? What
will you do out there in that field? What would
you do if you’re in sociology with these people?
What would you do if you’re in the Ag. Depart¬
ment where you learn how to plant corn and raise
cattle and you go into India? Do you know any¬
thing about people in India? Do you know any¬
thing about human beings? You may come with
all your nice conceivable training in how to raise
cattle—and you go to India, and that’s a taboo to
eat them?

“But you get a look at your education, the
education that you’re given, and now you’ve got
to demand more. But there’s a right way. And the
right way is making you fully aware of all the
alternatives, and then giving you the insight and
all the sense and the credit that you’re a human
being and have some common sense (evidently,
you must have had to pass these tests to get in
here), and have enough faith in you that you’re
going to pick the right one. And if you pick the
wrong one after knowing all the consequences—
and you’re going to go that way all along—you
might as well find out right now so you won’t
take too many other people with you.”

And in every case, they come out like champs.
I feel proud to be an instructor, and I’m privi¬
leged—for the first time in my life I feel like I’m
really making an inroad.

No, I’m not being a communist. I don’t need
to bring them. I don’t need to bring them. But I
can give them enough and give them enough al¬
ternatives where they know where to go. I don’t
go teaching like I know it all. I teach them how to

180

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

find it all. I give them what experiences I have
only as a pusher—to push them into something
else. They ask me a question. If I don’t have the
answer, I tell them where to find the answer. I
don’t start, “Well, uh, we’ll forget that right now.
We’ll come back to it next week.” Now, was I
not so damn insecure that I feel like I’ve got to
have all the answers?

I have my students teaching each other. You
come and you’re a little more advanced than this
guy. OK, this guy, he’s got a good style but needs
a little more help in this area. “Well, you’re pretty
good in that area, so you work with him.” So,
I’m working with this kid who doesn’t know a
damn thing about it. So, this kid who is with him
nine or ten times turns out to be the better. Ev¬
eryone in the class will come out ten times greater
than they were when they went in there, and I
made this demand on myself. I will tell the whole
class, “I am not here for you to like me. You’re
not supposed to. You’re here to get all you can
get out of me. If you like me, then you’ll accept
anything I give you as is —and then you’re in
trouble, because you won’t know what to look
for. And if something bad comes at you ... I could
be coming at you, upside your head with a stick,
and you’ll never realize it until I hit you with it—
because I’m a human being also, and thereby. I’m
subject to errors. So, if you don’t start question¬
ing me, then you’ll accept some of the errors that
I may teach and not know it, because I never knew
it. But if I can teach you how to question and
resolve —not question and condemn, question and
resolve—then you will catch me in an error, and
we both can be better off, because we’ve both
been corrected.”

And it’s been working. It’s been working. Our
demonstration on Governor’s Day—back to
that—I was proud of those kids.

They’re attacking Paul Adamian and Fred
Maher. The reason why they’re attacking Paul
Adamian? Because President Miller knows me.
I’ve been at his office a lot of times prior to that
day, so he knew where I was. He knew what I
was trying to do way before. He knew why I was

out on the field, what I was doing out there. I’ve
been down talking to Senator Pozzi for the past
six, eight months since I’ve been here, keeping
him up on all that’s been happening. Felt really
good about it. He called President Miller.

Paul Adamian? He was doing exactly the
same thing I was doing, but one difference.
There’s one thing I wasn’t doing that Paul
Adamian was doing, and that was making my
political statement. I didn’t say, “Peace now, peace
now.” I said it too many times already. I know
what it means. I don’t have to tell them. I didn’t
have to wear an armband; the color of my skin is
the armband I can never get rid of.

Paul Adamian was the only other professor
that was keeping the lid on that situation. I'm not
saying it in his defense. I’m saying it because he
was doing exactly as I was doing. There were
two people out there that were being respected:
Paul Adamian and myself. He came in the same
time I did when he saw the thing blowing up and
then took it. He volunteered to take it. He held
the other side of my cane to hold the kids back
off the ROTC. And Bob Harvey had to pull Paul
Adamian out of the way because the kids are push¬
ing so hard he was pushed into a bayonet, but he
still stood there and held those kids back. At the
same time he was also saying, “Peace now.” He
had to, and if he didn’t, they wouldn’t have lis¬
tened to him, like Bob Harvey and a lot of other
professors (well, not a lot of others—two other
ones, three other ones in there).

Bob Harvey told one group of kids when they
were out in the field, “Don’t go beyond this line!”
And the kids... I had to save him from being
whipped to death. You don’t tell a bomb that’s
already in the process of being exploded that “we
can turn it down.” It’s inside of that bomb not to
explode. And stick your finger in there to try to
put it out. All you can do is scatter the sparks. He
was like sticking his finger inside of a bomb where
the wick had burnt down but hadn’t exploded yet,
and trying to find the flame causing sparks. It was
too late to do that. That should have been taken
care of when they were planning it, and he was

BENJAMIN A. HAZARD

181

not there. So, I had to come behind him and say,
“No, no, no. Bob. That’s not what’s happening.
That’s not what’s happening.”

I pushed him aside and saved him from be¬
ing whipped and said, “Use your two front toes.”
I said, “Let’s not be no fools—these guys will do
us with knives. We’ll, you know, let them know
how you feel, but don’t touch them, because you
know you’re right, OK? Just stand up there. When
that guy come walking at you with a bayonet,
just stand right there. They’ll walk into you, or
you step aside, and walk by you, but don’t touch
them.”

Because it was already exploding. All I had
to do—and I know what I was doing—is take this
bomb, and redirect the explosion where it would
cause less damage. It’s going to explode. The
flame has burned into it already. It’s already in a
frustrated stage. It’s going to explode. Now, I can
do one of two things: let it sit there and explode
and then destroy everything around it, or direct
the energy, direct the explosion where it can cause
less damage. But I have to accept it as a bomb
exploding before I can find out what the hell I’m
going to do with it, while all these other guys—
they’re panicking. They were out in the field be¬
cause they were panicking, [laughter] They had
to do something.

Another guy was up in the stands saying,
“Let’s get them out, let’s get them out! Let’s get
them all out!”

I said, “Sure, in the middle of the ceremony,
now, you’re going to have three hundred, five
hundred students mobbing out into the middle of
that field. And do you know what those guys are
going to do? Do they know that you plan to have
them locked out? No, all they think is that here
comes three hundred—to a thousand—hostile
people coming down here on the field, and I’m
down on the field. What are they going to do?
Call the cops, call the police, and call everybody
else in to beat them up after they come down—
because you panicked. You got so scared you
wanted to get them out, but didn’t think about
where the hell you were leading them. You were

leading them into direct confrontation. No, you
sit down. I told you—you stay right there.”

Then another student jumps up, “Let’s go
down on the field.”

I said, “What the hell you want to go out on
the field for? You want to go down on the field?”

“Yes, I want to go down on the field. I can’t
sit up there.”

“Well, go ahead on. If you really feel like
you want to go down there, you go down there.
Why would it take a whole mob to back you up?
Are you that insecure? Do you really believe in
it? If you really believe in it, you don’t need any¬
body to go with you. Or you don’t want to be
noticed? You want to be hidden in the crowd. See,
that’s what happened at Kent. All those three kids
that were killed, not a one of them were even in
the demonstration! The odds are always for you!
I’ve seen them at Berkeley. I’ve seen them shot
down in the street. Not one kid was really doing
it—the rock throwing, the bottle throwing—no,
those guys don’t get shot. It’s all the other ones
that get shot. Sure, you call the whole crowd
down. Let them follow you down there, and let
them get wiped out, and you get away free. Man,
you go down. If you want to go down one by one,
you go down.” And the tension was getting re¬
ally hot then, because one of us came over to a
viewpoint of support by coming over. They want
to go. But I tell them not to go, and now he’s not
going to let them go.

That’s when Paul Adamian left the stands and
went down there. He went down at a bad time—
it wasn’t bad per se, but it was bad timing. Gov¬
ernor Laxalt was walking across to give an award
(and I didn’t notice he was going across, no more
than Paul did), and at the same time Paul Adamian
shot across the field, by himself. He never raised
his voice. He never told anyone he was going.
But he knew what was happening, and he got up,
and he went down across the field saying,
“Peace.” And then, one by one, they began going
across.

That’s why you didn’t see a mob running
across there. That’s why the ceremony wasn’t

182

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

broken up. Because they went across one at a time
and never did break up the ceremony. But had
they all went at one time, the dough boys, they’d
have blown up the ceremony. The dummy didn’t
realize it. All these great professors who are for
it, sitting up there scared as hell, are going to lead
the kids into a massacre because they’re too damn
scared to use their own common sense. Yet they
will condemn these kids for not doing it—be¬
cause, in fact, they did demonstrate and they got
in the stands stomping their feet. You know, you
can demonstrate, but don’t do it if you’re going
to stir fo lk s without demonstrating anything. They
stomped their feet. Now, is that the best they could
do for a demonstration? Boy, I was proud of them.
I was proud of them, considering all the circum¬
stances. All the circumstances and everyone in¬
volved.

And another reflection on Governor’s Day,
which got these kids about riled up. You set up
all the activities for the whole year (when it’s set
up on the calendar), they’re all things that—if
you want to use a political term—the right¬
wingers would dig. But I didn’t see anything on
the schedule that anyone from the left would go
for. So therefore, you have Governor’s Day, you
got Mackay Day, you got Queen Day, you got
this day—all these things in favor for one group
of people.

You’ve done it for all these years and say,
“Well, we’ve been doing it for all these years.”

“I know, that’s what the problem is, and no
one’s told to call you on it. But now you will.”

I say you’ve got to have a day for these other
people. The aggies, they’re getting upset now
because they don’t have no hillbilly music for
them. You have our rock music coming in, but no
hillbilly music. So everyone’s being screwed up
some way now, because we’re saying the major¬
ity. Sure, let the majority [pounds the table for
emphasis] have it the majority of the time. Well,
let the minority have it the minority of the time.

You run a set of offices. We have an open
election, and this is a conservative town. There’s
nothing wrong with it. So a group of people want
to be conservatives? That’s cool. Nothing wrong

with that. But when you have the election of
twenty officers, and they’re all conservative,
that’s not representation. That’s why people say
democracy is not the best way and the right way—
that they know it at this time, but they’re not ques¬
tioning enough to find the way to improve it.

This is what I was talking about earlier, and
that is because you’re all conservatives up there.
But how do you make an election that will have
the majority of conservatives, since this is a con¬
servative town, and minority of it liberal? See,
it’s hard if the majority always rules, until the
majority becomes so much aware of the other
guy’s point of view. And I don’t give a damn if
it’s conservative here like in Reno or “some kind
of liberal” that’s supposed to be in Berkeley. Both
extremes are bad and dangerous; and the middle,
dead center, is bad and dangerous. The majority
should be functioning within the middle area:
half-way to the left, half-way to the right, and be
free enough to be able to go back and forth as
need be.

There’s a lot of things I do you can consider
ultra-conservative. There’s a lot considered lib¬
eral. I don’t carry titles; I don’t believe in them. I
believe if one does what he must do at the time
he should do it, he will find he’s winning that
support. But when we have to holler ,“I am a left¬
ist,” or, “I am a right,” or, “I’m liberal,” or ,‘Tm
conservative,” or, “I’m Republican,” or, “I am
Democrat”—or “I am an American,” or, “You’re
not an American”—then we find ourselves try¬
ing to copy, to follow someone else’s trip.

Because we can’t accept ourselves as a whole
thing: we feel this, but we want to be, so won’t
we be like that. That’s what’s killing Hollywood.
People realize the Hollywood image is not a real
image. We can no longer tty to be like that. This
is what’s changing Hollywood. Our whole phi¬
losophy is even that way. We’ve been taught the
Puritan philosophy, and I call it the Puritan di¬
lemma: that Americans are this, that, and the other
thing.

They talk about it in you, a human being. The
laws of the church, what they’ve been slapping
on us, have been so inhuman it’s popular. That

BENJAMIN A. HAZARD

183

way, you see, the older people, when they get that
old where they can’t be tempted by all the vices
anyway, they might as well go down and do some¬
thing they believe in, something that they can
believe in. And religion is beautiful for them.
Religion has value. It also has its hang-ups. And
I’m not an atheist; I’m very religious, so I don’t
misinterpret that.

The reason why, some time I’m coming back
and make some of these clarifications because I
got an article printed in the [San Francisco ]
Chronicle yesterday about my art. And they used
Reno, three situations about Reno, and the way
they are compiled, I despise and hate Reno. You
don’t think that what’s printed was true? It said
like, “I despise a trip to Reno.” Well, at that time
I had a VW bus and I was making trips almost
every weekend, and I despised driving that bus
that 270, some odd miles. It’s a drag, and I de¬
spised it, because the bus was too slow. So, I get
a new car, so I don’t despise it so much. But they
didn’t put the qualification. They talked about the
bug. They talked about how he despised the trip
back to Reno. He says quote, “Reno is no good
for art. It’s the worst place in the world for art.”
And this was after they asked me like how am I
selling—because he knows I used to sell quite a
bit in the Bay Area—and how am I doing in Reno?

I said, “Well, it’s the worst place in the world
to sell art, because people come there to make a
quick buck, not to come buy art.”

But he took the people who come there to
say, “You come there to earn a quick buck, and
it’s the worst place in the world for art.”

So, put them together and quote what he said,
and between the two came out a little misunder¬
stood. But it was still true, but not quite that way.
So it came out and made it look like I really hated
Reno. So, even my own colleagues who should
know better came back last night and really were
upset and said, “Well, gee, that just represents
the whole Reno . . . .” (blah, blah, blah). And I’ve
gone through all kinds of hell with the faculty
here.

I had the worst times in my life being in Reno.
Like I had cops over at my house, and they al¬

most kicked me out for no reason. My rent was
supposed to be due, my term was supposed to be
due in July. He had the cops in June there be¬
cause I wasn’t out by June 1st. I had had a house
rented, so I was being with my kid. And he put a
note on the door said, “You can’t get in.” He came
over to my house saying he’d like to see me at
the end of the 30th. So, I can’t even go home, and
I go downtown with the prejudice they have down
there. So I have all kinds of... . I could have
printed loud if I really wanted to put Reno down,
you see. And there’s a lot of hell I’ve gone
through. If I really want to put the place down, I
can do it. But, you know, I wasn’t doing that. I’ve
begun getting adjusted to Reno. But, you know,
talk about misinterpretations. When you say one
thing, it means one thing to you; it’ll mean some¬
thing different to someone else.

So that’s what’s been happening, a lot of mis¬
understanding. In these meetings these kids have
been having since that time, they were getting
these kind of things ironed out, and the extrem¬
ists were being wiped out. They were automati¬
cally coming up looking like the extremists and
were being denounced by their own people as well
as the guys on the other side, and it automatically
went down.

Extremists on the campus are now nil. But
gee, you got Slattery, the extremist downtown.
He’s allowed to do that. And there’s nothing I
heard to make the extreme feel upset.

All right, you say, “Mr. Paul Adamian ap¬
pears to be extremist on this side, left side. Damn
him, crucify him, kick him off the campus. We
don’t have to have professors like this on the cam¬
pus.”

At the same time you let Slattery come up
there, and within twelve hours after he made his
statement, they bombed the Hobbit Hole. But no
one said anything about that man on that side,
you see, but you will damn the man on the other
side: “Damn them both.” You prosecute this man;
I mean, he’s a professor; you don’t want students
being taught by him. OK. Paul Adamian, he can
stand for, take anything you give him. Hang him
if you can. I don’t have to defend Paul Adamian.

184

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

I'll say at the same time, you hang the guy on the
other side, too. This is how we’re able to quiet
this campus down. We knocked out the extrem¬
ists on both sides. We shut their mouths up.

But downtown they’re not. They’re letting
the extremists on one side talk and make law, and
we accept it. I said I was going to go out and was
going to do a dirty triek. I was going to get that
statement and get twelve hours later a statement
from the Hobbit Hole, the bombing there, and
send it to San Francisco and then plaster it on the
front of the Chronicle. Say yes, let one extremist
talk. And this one guy who does nothing but run
across the field hollering, “Peace,” he’s getting
kicked off his job. He’s prosecuted for a whole
week on every channel and every television tube
for running across the damn field, while the ex¬
tremists on the other side can come up there and
tell a whole bunch of other students, “Wipe out
all those hippies and long-hairs and leftists.” And
then twelve hours later they bomb the building.
“Now how will we smoke a few leftists and long-
hairs and extremists?” While they were in it!

It wasn’t any empty abandoned building. It
was one that had people living in it, where people
have always lived in it. And that’s what happened
when that extremism takes place. That bombing
up there was done by probably one individual or
two, or that one little clan, who said, [whisper¬
ing] “Let’s get this campus jumping up like in
the other one. Let’s get them moving. They’re
dead. Let’s get them moving.” And I don’t see
this on campus either, because there’s no one on
campus that way. And for a lot of reasons they’re
not that way. In fact, they just don’t even know
what’s happening on the other campus for one
thing.

Three days later my neighbor, who’s a pro¬
fessor, didn’t even know about the Kent killing.
That’s how, you know, blocked in they are. They
don’t know what’s happening. So, you’ve got to
tell them about it. They bombed that building—
“Hey, this will probably agitate all these
people”—and it did, yes.

You know, the same day the bombing took
place at the Hobbit Hole? That same afternoon I

met with the aggies, the Sundowners, the cow¬
boys, the long-hairs and middle-of-the-road
people at the student union and discussed meth¬
ods of preventing violence from taking place be¬
cause of an individual act. Like if something hap¬
pens like a peace demonstrator goes down there—
which is fine—and a bunch of guys come beat
him up, we can call them and see if it was aggies
as the club, or just individuals within the aggie
people. We can find these kinds of methods so
we won’t find ourselves fighting each other as a
group rather than just resolving individual prob¬
lems—and good thing, because that night the
Hobbit Hole was bombed. And the next day they
just kept continuing the meeting, no hostility at
all. No hate towards the other guy. The aggies
were having a party with the long-hairs—and that
just cracked me up. So it failed.

The students found out that extremists like
that, they need to have followers. And when
there’s no followers, they can’t be a leader. And
if they can’t be a leader, they feel meaningless
and they leave. And this is what happened. Stu¬
dents don’t need a leader. They are their own
leader. There’s no leader. You can’t point a fin¬
ger at one individual as a leader. They have their
own leaders now. There may be a spokesman of
a given situation who changes with each
individual’s case, but that’s about it. Better get
yourself together.

So the regents are not finding out what’s hap¬
pening. They should be finding out what is hap¬
pening on campus, not what’s happening the way
that they see out there. And now they react to
just what the people downtown said, not know¬
ing what’s happening out here. They had “the
right to demand a certain kind of acts.” They sure
do. They also have the right to know all the facts,
and if you are a bunch of regents, you—to me—
are supposed to be that mediator. You better go
down there and find out what the hell’s happen¬
ing on campus. You have the president of these
campuses. They are supposed to be like a media¬
tor necessarily between the students and you. But
when he is failing on his job, if he is failing in his
job, you’re supposed to ride over his head and

BENJAMIN A. HAZARD

185

get down on it yourself and find out what’s hap¬
pening, not go the other damn way. Because you
have acted as regent.

You’ve acted under what I call (excuse my
French, but I can’t find no nicer term for it) half-
assed information. Therefore, you react that same
damn way: one and one is three. So you thought
it was true, and you react as if one and one is
three; therefore, as you found, it became wrong.
If you went back in there and said, “Well, I hear
all this. I’ve read in . ...” I mean, if you read a
newspaper, it comes from half-assed informa¬
tion—and you are misinterpreting it anyway. You
didn’t know, [knocks on table for emphasis] What
regent came to this campus to find out what was
happening out here? Sure, the demonstration went
this way, but what happened following it? If they
were in there, they would be given an award. Like
they made a statement about commending
McQueen, and when anyone asked him, he
thought all the students loved McQueen.
McQueen is the most despised person on this
campus by the students, and they’re going to hang
him yet. But at the same time the regent doesn’t
know what’s happening here, except from hear¬
say, and gave a nice award to McQueen. That’s
how much they know about what’s happening on
their campus that they’re supposed to be repre¬
senting, and so they wonder why the students get
so upset.

Any questions?

[laughter] What kinds of actions do you feel were
most effective in cooling off the violence, cool¬
ing off the situation here after the bombing?

The action was the meetings, the meetings
which stalled immediately after. One time I made
a statement, and I thought it was taken the wrong
way—and I’m so shocked it wasn’t—that rather
than fighting about leftist point of view and right¬
ist point of view and cowboy point of view and a
long-hair point of view, rather than fighting it like
in a mass room like this, put your points and is¬
sues across there. OK. Don’t tty to convince a
guy of your point of view. Just let him know how

you feel. Then leave the room. Don’t leave with
the same group that you know thinks exactly the
same way you do; leave with the guy from the
other side, and vice versa. Try to understand why
you’re doing what you’re doing. Then you prob¬
ably could help each other.

After making that statement, some guy from
the other side made a wisecrack, “Oh you sound
like an immature professor, an immature per¬
son”—and blah, blah, blah. He was booed by his
own people, and I left the room. About ten min¬
utes later they all came out, and three people came
to me to discuss. Then everyone else did the same
thing; they went and joined other groups—some
people they’d never even dealt with before. This
stalled it, and this is what has kept the lid on the
situation.

It was so great that whole week, and the re¬
gents were meeting that following weekend in
Elko. The aggies and other cowboys and what¬
not and professors from the other departments
were coming to me and saying, “What’s going to
happen next?” If the regents come favoring the
left too strongly, it’ll make a lot of right people
upset, the cowboys and aggies. Come out too far
to the right, a lot of long-hairs will be upset. I
hope that they can get this information and be
more responsible for their actions.

So, at that time I ran over to talk to Ed Olsen,
and asked him if he could get a hold of Procter
Hug and Edd Miller and see if sometime that fol¬
lowing day they could speak with me, just the
two of them, for about an hour. “I will fly out
there or drive out there by tonight, if I know that
they’ll be there to meet me.’

He’d say, “Well, I can’t seem to get a hold of
them,” or what-not, and I knew it was fishy. But
I ran the whole story down of what was taking
place that whole week, and even point by point
on individual things, and he said he’d never got a
hold of President Miller. But it really cracked me
up because reading the paper the next day, half
the quotes that Miller said were exact quotes I
had given Ed. So I knew the message got across,
which is what I wanted, so that was cool, because
it came out that the students were meeting and

186

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

getting these steps, and these things were being
mentioned. And, to me, this is where it was: the
students getting themselves together and resolv¬
ing their problems together—not from the extrem¬
ists coming up there and sending representatives
to act like a negotiator they have to feed back.
All of them arc getting it firsthand. Even Hill had
his ROTC people—damn near mandatory that
they were there—and they were there. Some good
discussion came out.

At first I got scared one day when I saw an
ROTC man standing up there and about twenty
students around him. I said, “Oh, gee! What’s
happening here?” I ran over there, you know, try¬
ing to barge in and break it down only to find
out.

“Oh, it’s OK. We had a good talk,” says the
ROTC guy.

“Well, great,” you know, and I turned around
and took off.

You know, it was really exciting, and then
having a cowboy telling me they had a party the
night before with a bunch of long-hairs, and they
had a good time. First time that he’s ever been to
the same party with the long-hairs, and yet he
gave the party and had long-hairs there or what¬
not. It was really, you know, like it was a funny
situation, and it’s really beautiful. People are be¬
ginning to realize.

I had some professors from the Ag Depart¬
ment come to me and say, “Yes, Ben, I really see
how wrong I’ve been. I have been teaching just
the skill of agriculture, but not how to think.”
Some of his boys were making these bad state¬
ments like, “Oh, let the minorities speak,” and
really downing minorities and long-hairs because
they are minorities and because they have long
hair—to the point where it turned most of these
other people off, especially his own professors.
And they came to me later realizing what they
had been doing by not bringing them up-to-date
with what’s happening and how their acts them¬
selves will have to do with the world today. They
were, in fact, teaching them prejudices. The preju¬
dice is avoiding what you do not know, and you
start conceiving fantasies—and by not mention¬

ing these things, this would have been giving these
kids this extremist point of view.

Now, the funny thing about the situation:
every cowboy is still a cowboy, every aggie is
still an aggie, every Sundowner is still a
Sundowner—with the same basic philosophies.
It’s just that their attitude towards the other guy
has changed: because he’s black he’s not a dumb,
ignorant degenerate; or because he has long hair
he’s not a dirty, sloppy hippie. The prejudices
have been wiped out because the political ele¬
ment has been dropped, so there’s no more of this.
Right now, you have the aggies saying hi to long-
hairs, not avoiding them—and vice versa. So
these guys still can be considered conservative,
but with much more responsibility. And the same
thing with the left, with much more responsibil¬
ity. That an aggie has to cany a picket sign or
otherwise, he’s a dirty dog; he’s on the other guy’s
side. They will not demand that because he’s not
picketing in the street. It’s not saying he’s neces¬
sarily on the other side; he may believe in the
other side’s motives more than ours, and that’s
about the extreme of it. So he is being respected
now. The aggies and the people on that side are
now respecting the guys who are on the left. This
is what the biggest riots have been about coast-
to-coast on all levels.

These kids have come to a turn that no other
campus has, and yet their regents who said, “This
will not be like any other campus,” will stop and
look at what the hell they’re doing. They, them¬
selves, are the only part of this campus that’s be¬
ing exactly like every other campus. The acts the
regents are doing here are exactly like what the
regents on every other campus have been doing,
and that is what has been maintaining and con¬
tinuing this direction these campuses have been
going into. If they don’t want to be like the other
campuses, better go and find out what the other
campuses are like and make sure that they’re not
doing the exact same thing. They are doing the
same thing. You can take the course the regents
and Procter Hug are making, and I got a ticket to
every damn campus in the country. I bet you have
the exact quote verbatim. The unique thing about

BENJAMIN A. HAZARD

187

this campus? These kids come together before
the riot. That’s why there’s no riot. Those other
campuses? They had to riot to get together. And I
know. I’ve been on the other campuses—I gradu¬
ated with my master’s from Berkeley.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image outside? Image is a bad word,
[laughter]

No, no, no. I think I know what you mean.
The image is being one-sided. I think that’s the
problem. If the regents took more heed and came
back on campus more to study what’s happen¬
ing .... The problem now is half the regents live
here. How many of them hit this campus other
than regents’ meetings? Just walk around and see
what the students are doing and talk to students.
Once a week talk to a student.

They would be publicizing some of the good
things that are happening on this campus, and the
image would be much better. But they don’t print
the good things that are happening; they always
print the conflicts, only. Only the conflicts. So
what do you get? Downtown is thinking of all
these guys as dirty, sloppy hippies or dirty bum,
bum, bum, bum, or whatever. But if the regents
would get more off their little ivory towers and
get the heck in where they’re supposed to be rep¬
resenting, so when they go meet the other people
on the other side of the fence, they can give them
some information of what’s been happening, they
would very well increase the community relation¬
ship just overnight. Overnight!

Do you think that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participating in a demonstration ?

I don’t think it’s an issue of academic free¬
dom in the way that persons like Procter Hug and
what-you-call-it are talking about it. I think it’s
an issue of academic freedom if the regents arc
frying to make it so—and that was like hollering
wolf before the wolf appeared.

They saw a professor running across a field
with his hands up hollering “Peace!” and there’s

nothing bad about that. But, because he’s a pro¬
fessor, they want to make an issue out of it, be¬
cause he’s doing what they don’t like, that they
wouldn’t want to do. In other words, you’re a
conservative, and you don’t like a liberal. So, he
did a liberal move, and you don’t like it. So what
are you going to do? You’re going to try to make
a way to step on that bug, rather than just leave
well enough alone. Leave him alone! His rights
are just as great as yours, and that’s, to me, what
it amounts to. The issue of academic freedom is
like.... The regents are pushing that kind of
approach, making it an academic issue when it
really wasn’t. It was an individual doing an indi¬
vidual act.

How do you think students and faculty can be
effective politically, or should they be hying to
influence governmental policy?

If you’re talking about people who happen
to be, through employment, faculty members and
through a situation, students, I would say yes, they
should be politically directed—to help wipe out
some of these frustrations and maybe give some
meaningful directions. It took them as a force to
make the politicians stop and listen to them for a
change. And I hate to say it, but the system has
been so screwed up that they will never listen
until they’re threatened. Then when they’re
threatened, they say, “Well gee, you didn’t have
to go that way to do it”—when, in fact, it hap¬
pens to be that that is true. If they didn’t go vio¬
lent, they wouldn’t listen. They won’t listen be¬
fore the bomb. This campus started to. The stu¬
dents began listening before the bomb. The fac¬
ulty began listening before the bomb, but down¬
town won’t. They still want the violence before
they can listen.

Education, in most cases, is improving. Just
talk to some of these people on campus that find
ways to improve it. Talk to the Dean Kirkpatrick.
Oh, he’s talking about some good moves, good
steps that would really improve the system here,
improve the educational system—where there’s
no longer emphasis on trade school, but what to

188

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

do with those trades and how to utilize those
trades, which is the academic freedom.

The frustrating part about a professor like
Paul Adamian, who really believes in the educa¬
tional system . . . when he teaches the difference
between a black culture and a white culture
through literature, he’s not talking about politics.
He’s talking about making literature more mean¬
ingful today. We’ve talked about the blacks, we’ve
talked about the whites, talked about the purple,
talked about all kinds of people. This is academic,
this is part of the teaching process, and this is
how you will learn and learn to think. But it’s
frustrating when you teach them all this, and yet
turn right around, and your politicians are play¬
ing like a Slattery role. How can you teach them
something that they will not be able to use be¬
cause you got Slatterys in there? So out of frus¬
tration, he goes in a political way. He happened
to be employed as a professor, so that’s the way
it goes. If you get all these students pushing that
way, then I think the institution should sort of
bend that way. But do it in a responsible way, not
one side and not the other—both sides. You may
even push for one side, but let them be fully aware
of the other side. Our education doesn’t do that;
it teaches only one side: a conservative side and
then the other.

This student of Fred Maher’s—I didn’t hear
all the case. I didn’t hear part of what took place.
But it was a bunch of circumstances which had
him talk about the governor at that time. One in¬
structor—the one who did the complaining that
put him on the hot seat—called him in to talk to a
bunch of other people and then came back into
his room and carried the discussion into it. She
asked him personal questions on a personal level,
and when he answered her, she took it as though
he was teaching this. So now his individuality
was being impaired. He didn’t like the governor,
and he said, “I don’t like the damn governor.”

“Oh! Oh, wow! Let’s put this down. He’s
teaching this kind of stuff in the classroom!”

Now, if this is what’s happening, I don’t think
this comes out in the hearing clear enough. But
this is academic freedom. We’re not talking about

anything that.... I cracked up when I read that
article, that paid where the regents are passing...
where a professor can not teach anything in the
class... does not play into the course. Because at
this day and age everything is relevant. Every
single thing—and most of all profanity because
of the extremity of the situation today.

The Cambodia war has a lot to do with poli¬
tics, has a lot to do with art, has a lot to do with
English, has a lot to do with—you name it—nurs¬
ing! You can’t give me one area of any educa¬
tional institution that cannot be involved with
Cambodia, for instance. Just Cambodia. Never
mind the Vietnam War itself, but the Cambodia
situation has an effect. You have to learn your
nursing about taking bullet wounds out if you
decide you want to go into the medical corps. The
literature that’s being printed today is based upon
the war, so you have to know about the war to
understand why these guys are printing the way
they are printing, especially if you want to be a
great writer yourself—or a great artist.

My success has been based upon the fact that
I am painting and do my art based upon the time
I am living, and the things that I am being con¬
fronted with today. Yesterday is only a history of
this, and a history course today is a good example.
How can you make history more valuable so that
we can take today’s example and project on how
it took place? How are we here today? [knocks
on table twice for emphasis] Why I’m smoking a
Viceroy cigarette right now will have an effect
on what took place every day before that. So that
a Viceroy cigarette today is very important if you
want to know about, you know, my smoking habit
of yesterday, and you can’t deny it; you can’t leave
it out.

From the talk of the regents’ point of view,
they don’t realize this, because they were under
a trade school situation—where we didn’t have
the kind of situation we have today—where the
demands on society were different. The demands
have changed; the goals are changed, and we’ve
got to change with it. But no, we still think like
these guys downtown: this one, with the rah-rah-
sis-boom-bah, driving around in the little cars they

BENJAMIN A. HAZARD

189

used to have. This is the same situation that
they’re having today, and their parents were
squawking and griping about them same way they
do today. They simply can’t look at it that way.
They can’t look at it that way. It’s a shame, but
it’s life.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is going?

There is no such thing. They’re trying to rec¬
reate one, but it’s nowhere.

Following this demonstration they had a
meeting with the instructors and professors at the
Center, and they talked about getting that peace
program going again. Sounded like basically a
good idea, but I listened to too many people think¬
ing about doing something, but never get around
to doing it. So I just avoided those completely.

But even the situation about the demonstra¬
tion .... The professors here, they’re scared to
even have their name mentioned in regards to
supporting the candidates. And with people are
that afraid, you won’t have a peace movement.
It’s all depending on how they’re concerned, and
they will not do anything to help it come about
because they’re afraid of what people may say.
At this meeting there was only a handful, about
twenty professors, and of that twenty professors
there were about ten of them there that were
scared to even open their mouth. And when con¬
fronted, they were scared to even do that. They
were scared to even go down for the peace dem¬
onstration we had that Friday, the moratorium for
Kent State. They were afraid even to be respon¬
sible to get on a phone and call ministers up from
downtown. Either that or afraid to get involved.
If that’s the length of it, no, forget it. They’re
scared. They’re scared of the conservative ele¬
ment in this town; they’re scared to speak up.

Even the left people are scared to speak out.
My whole article was based upon kids, life, the
existence of life, and education. Mainly educa¬
tion and kids, and my personal background. This
is an art paper on art, about black artists’ experi¬
ence. Only one little paragraph, two lines talking

about Reno—the statements they took. Yet, even
my own art colleagues—they’ve known me for
the whole semester. They’ve known the hell I’ve
gone through. One of them was one who helped
me when the landlord told him to get out and
called me a dirty name. So he knew, but yet even
he, convinced because of that one element, one
little line. I mean, Fm trying to do good things
about Reno. I said, “I haven’t talked about the
bad things. There’s not that much in the way of
good things Fve experienced here.”

I mean, like, when you can’t leave here and
go home and relax because the landlord comes
up there saying, “I want to see you at the end of
the thirty-thirty.” Another time you come up, they
have two or three cops up there because the
landlord’s wanting to kick you out, because he
just wants you out for no reason. I was going to
leave July 1st; my contract was up. And June 1st,
when I wasn’t out, he had the cops there when I
got back from San Francisco. Then he calls up,
and someone else happened to be there, so he
cussed him out, called him a long-hair, dirty so-
and-so and so-and-so. He even called Kirkpatrick
up and cussed the hell out of him (and see, he’s
been kept abreast of my whole situation by help¬
ing get housing for the new black instructor we
have coming now). So, he knew what was hap¬
pening. He cussed him out, see. So, you know,
like wow.

When I did arrive here, at first, because I wore
a black hat and a beard—it was an excuse they
used—but they’re talking about my black skin. I
wore the shirt that I bought downtown, the cow¬
boy hat I bought downtown. Just because I didn’t
block it... . See, you know, that black hat that I
wear? I bought it down at Parker's. It’s a plain
cowboy hat, but I just didn’t block it the same
way a cowboy blocks his. So, Fm supposed to be
a dirty dog, right? Because I didn’t block my hat
the same way, or because I don’t wear pointed
cowboy boots, but I just wear flat tipped ones.
And this is what the article was about. The guy
who printed it wore a cowboy hat and cowboy
boots. So, you know, but just because I mention
two things like, “Oh, you can’t sell art in Reno.”

190

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

In Berkeley and when I was in San Francisco
Bay Area at first, from June to January to June, I
made about $15,000 selling my art. And I’ve been
here since September, August, and haven’t sold
a hundred dollars’ worth. So, when he asked me
how are my sales in Reno, I said, “Man, you can’t
sell art worth a damn in Reno. The people come
up there to make a quick buck, and that’s it—not
to buy art.” So, he printed all that, except “not to
buy art” or “people.” He said, “You go up to Reno
and earn a quick buck.” He misunderstood it. This
guy, this art friend of mine had misunderstood it
to mean I came to Reno to make a quick buck. I
was being paid a thousand dollars a month teach¬
ing at Berkeley High. I'm only getting paid seven
hundred dollars a month teaching here, and he
knew it all.

Now, here’s a man who knows it, who was
up there with me when the man cussed him out,
who worked with me through all this hell for the
past ten months, and he couldn’t see what the heck
was happening when he read that article. He’s a
peace man, but never there when you need him
for peace.

I said, “Now, if this is extreme, whew! Now,
after this experience—I don’t have the time for
this next year. By the way, I was down in Berke¬
ley. I just got a job offer for opening a museum
for $18,452. They want me to quit right now and
take the job, which is exactly $8,460 more than
I’m getting paid right now, and I turned it down”

They said, “Why, are you scared to have a
contract?”

I said, “That contract means not more than a
piece of paper like this. But I'm working with
some people.” I didn’t go and apply for the job; I
was asked. “The students asked for help, and I’m
giving it to them. The administration has asked
for help, and I'm giving it to them. If you offer
me $100,000,1 wouldn’t take the job.”

“If the money doesn’t mean anything to

you

I said, “No, I won’t go as far as to say that,
but that’s not the first thing on my mind. The first
thing is people. The second, money, OK? But only

because of this second I got to pass the first. No
more than I would if I came and took this job,
and I get another job offer of $25,000. You would
worry about me leaving for that $25,000 if I left
those other $9,000 for your $18,000.”

He said, “Yes, I see your point.”

I said, “If you want me bad enough, you will
hold it until the end of this next academic year,
which is end of your fiscal year, July 1st of next
year. If you’re really sincere, and you really want
me for some good thing, you’ll wait, and I’ll get
the job. And it’s because any good person, you
won’t find them walking around without a job,
and any good person will never leave in the
middle of a job for another job for money. Money
I don’t worry about. I figure if I do my job well,
whether it be art or teaching, the money will au¬
tomatically be there. I don’t have to worry about
it; let you worry about it. If I got a job to do. I’m
going to finish it. When I finish it, then .... So,
if you want me then, you better start working on
me now. Get that paper and stuff written up and
get it cleared now, in case someone asks me for
help before you do.”

I'm talking about concrete with the paper,
because a lot of people asked me for help the same
time I came here, but no one came across with a
deal before they did here. So, I said, “Now, you
ask for help. You do it first, get it in writing and
get the commitment and get that price figured out,
get that name on the dotted line. All right then,
you’re first. Now, anybody else is going have to
wait while I finish it there. But if you wait until
the last minute, forget it, because someone else
is going to be after it, and I will not leave it.”

So, after this guy really squawked and griped
about this article, and how it was about Reno, I
told him about that. Then, “Oh, yes, well. . . .”
Then he changed; he understood again. But in
other words, it’s like I have got to prove every
step of my way before I can be accepted in this
area. This is what it amounts to.

Do you have any other comments you want to
make about the Governor’s Day or other events ?

BENJAMIN A. HAZARD

191

Yes. One, in which I went and spoke to a
police officer. I commended the police on their
actions on Governor’s Day. It was hard as hell
doing what I was doing, trying to keep both sides
together calmed down. I would have totally, com¬
pletely failed if the police had come onto the cam¬
pus. They were all lined up out there. They didn’t
quite make it down. They came in twice in small
forces when it was too late. That’s when the bar¬
ricade was stopped. Paul Adamian and a few other
people broke it up and let them through—Paul
Adamian, Bob Harvey. I was just standing there.
I wasn’t doing .... They cleared away because
the general came out. So no one, including my¬
self, knew the cops had been there, but they were.

And there were three cops on motorcycles
waiting at the entrance of the park where people
were filing out, and they were being harassed by
a couple of students, saying, “Oh they’re . . .”
(blah, blah, blah, blahs). They kept their cool
when they stepped on a motorcycle and didn’t do
anything. They took off at one point where one
student was trying to get onto a car, but they didn’t
overreact. They kept their cool. I commended
them very highly in their actions, and I don’t go
around commending policemen. But I told them
that, and you give credit where credit is due. I’ll
commend them on it.

Second, I commended the governor for, im¬
mediately after making his statement in regards
to the Governor’s Day event, he commended the
students for keeping their cool—not just the
ROTC, but all of them, the people in the stands.
Whereas President Miller didn’t say something
about it until like a week later. See, the governor
did what the regents should have been doing, what
the president should be doing: publicizing when
something which could have been bad turns out
to be better and give the credit where credit is
due [knocks twice for emphasis], on the good el¬
ements. You don’t talk about anything on this
campus except the bad things. He does the tradi¬
tional thing. But exceptional things, out-of-the-
normal things that are good, they don’t mention.
They mention when you win a football game or
whatever, but never an event like all that week

when these kids really put this problem out. Or
even the fact that they didn’t explode up into vio¬
lence on Governor’s Day, where every place else
would have. If they came out with a Governor’s
Day at Cal or Stanford or any other campus—
“We’re going to have Governor’s Day as usual”—
oh, man, are you kidding!? Oh, my goodness!

Man, if these people only knew. If they only
knew. All right, I saw Berkeley break up over
much, much smaller things than that. That goes
with that People’s Park thing. 1 1 helped, the first
day, organize the people with the builders, when
the people in the community came up with the
money. I had experience about building parks in
small communities, and they wanted to build it,
and you have to help them mobilize people to do
the work. They had the people. I showed them
how to do it. And they had the police department
there helping. The fire department was helping.
Some professors from the university were there.
The university gave permission to use the water
for grass, and this went on for about a whole week.
We had about 4,000 people working. Beautiful.
The cops came and said, “Damn, damn, why don’t
they start at the other end there? That’s where
they’re dumping these stolen cars.” This was one
of these dirty vacant lots with pit holes about that
deep full of rubbish and garbage and wrecked
cars. These kids flattened the whole ground out,
planted trees and grass and shrubbery. Everyone
loved it. So 44 people from the community who
don’t like long-hairs called Governor Reagan up.
Now, those 4,000 people were out there for the
past two weeks doing it, and these kids live in
this community now. People live in the commu¬
nity of 4,000. Now, 44 people from that commu¬
nity called Governor Reagan, and he calls the
National Guard out for 44 people. Damn the
4,000, including the officers and what-not. He
makes it a law that they’re violating, and that is
what caused the People’s Park riot. It’s a shame.
It’s a shame.

We didn’t come down there to negotiate and
to talk and reason things out. Here’s a lot that’s
been vacant for about five, six years. Nothing but
a sore spot. I mean, a sore spot. You know, like

192

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

can you imagine torn-down buildings that stay
tom down for like five years? You know that the
debris is left over because they had a basement
patched up. And these kids gathered money. The
merchants donated money and materials and cov¬
ered the whole thing. Beautiful—grassy, trees,
swings for the kids, and everything. It’s just beau¬
tiful. And forty-four people called Reagan on it
and played that game. Reagan played that dumb
game. He didn’t come down to find out what was
happening, find out first what it really was. No,
[snaps fingers] just like that. They got a police¬
man, the police department there. The fire de¬
partment was there. I mean it, I really do. And
then see the results: death, violence, occupation.
I was teaching at Berkeley High, and the cops
were breaking in my rooms and what not. It was
just, oh, an ugly scene. All these innocent people
being wiped out and that stuff. Property de¬
stroyed, burnt down—all for stupidity and igno¬
rance and naivete and prejudice.

That made these Kent killings and Jackson
sound so bad. We talk about when the cops are
pursuing individuals, when they go where a bunch
of innocent people are. If the FBI has to break
into a house, you know, and there are people in
there, they won’t shoot until all the people are
safe. But when it happened in Jackson, Missis¬
sippi, they all were black, and so they shot the
whole place, killing innocent people to get one.
If there was a sniper—I’ll say there was a sniper;
I don’t know.I don’t believe there was, but say
there was a sniper—then you mean you can kill
all the innocent people to get that one sniper?
And we can go into Cambodia and destroy all
the other guy’s land and property, and make it
easier for us in our house, and then we’ll leave
them and leave it messed up. We’ll leave a war
there now and something else.

So, I commended the [Nevada] governor, I
commended the police. And from that day, there’s
very few other things I commend. I’ll say one
thing, if it wasn’t for Paul Adamian, though ....
I had a harder time holding these do-good pro¬
fessors back ,who came at the tail-end panick¬
ing, than I did with students. And, like I said, if it
wasn’t for Paul Adamian, myself, the level heads

of the students, the coolness of the ROTC kids
for not getting scared themselves, and the police
and the governor, all hell would have broke loose.

Note

1. In April 1969, a group of Berkeley residents cleared
an unused lot belonging to the University of Califor¬
nia and created a park, planting shrubs and trees in the
area. Over the next months and years, the university
made attempts to reclaim the property for other uses,
resulting in a number of protests and riots.

Beverly M. Hudson

June 10, 1970

Just for the record do you want to give your name,
your hometown, and your position at the univer¬
sity?

Well, my name is Beverly Hudson. I claim
Reno as my hometown. I’ve been a long-time
resident here. I’m the publications director for
the National College of State Trial Judges. I’m
an alumna of the university and a graduate stu¬
dent, as well.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Well, that’s a good question, [laughter] My
initial reaction was possibly because I have been
active in the alumni association on campus for a
length of time. Possibly somebody got word of
my reaction at the time and felt that I was very
vocal on certain things. It was a question in my
mind as to why I was asked—I’m very flattered.

Oh, I see. What was your reaction to President
Nixon’s decision to go into Cambodia, your per¬
sonal reaction?

My personal reaction on that was that I was
sorry to see it happening because I don’t think
anyone wants an extension of the war as it’s go¬
ing on, at all. But then I started thinking about it,
and I thought, “Well, he does have advisors that
we don’t know about.” I think it’s at a time when
the citizens have to stand behind the president.
They need to know how they’re feeling, but I did
look at it and think, “Well, he must have reasons
for this, because I’m certain the man is not a war¬
monger.”

So, I was really standing behind him—won¬
dering why, hating to see it happen, but yet felt
that he had made the decision—it must be neces¬
sary for some reason. I think that the events since
are seeming to prove out that maybe it was the
wisest move.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on University
of Nevada, Reno campus?

Well, of course, the students reacting very
violently in an emotional way. They don’t like
the war. Of course, no one likes the war. There’s
the difference that they don’t stop to realize. I
feel that it did have a bearing on what did hap-

194

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

pen. The students were riled. Students are con¬
cerned, but I don’t think students arc any more
concerned today than we were at that time. I don’t
think they have any more pressures than we did
at that time. I think they react, possibly, more
openly in many cases. And I do think it had a
bearing on what happened next here on the uni¬
versity campus. I don’t think they stopped to think
about it. I don’t think they stopped to think how
this affects others—city, state, national, or world¬
wide.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodia decision,
such as what happened at Kent State ?

Oh, of course, it was a saddening thing. It’s
hard to even explain the reaction, because I feel
that the students, in running rampant as they have,
are really defeating their puipose. I mean, they
say, “We want peace. We don’t want this to hap¬
pen.” And yet they’re reacting in a situation that
will do it.

Of course, everyone was saddened by the
death of anyone under these circumstances—in¬
nocent bystanders. Of course, someone says,
“How can you have an innocent bystander? You
know, they were there.” It is too bad. But I keep
thinking if the students would only think a little
bit further ahead than just today, possibly, and
tty and work through the channels that are avail¬
able to them ....

It’s sad, and I think it is going to have a tre¬
mendous effect the other way, and this is also sad.
That’s the thing that upsets me so about it: it is
the opposite reaction to the students. It’s there. I
think we’ve seen it here.

Regarding Governor’s Day’s activities here on
campus, what did you think of the arrangements
made for the ceremony?

Oh, I felt the arrangements were very well
made. They were in accordance with what the
Governor’s Day traditionally has been. As a uni¬
versity function, I felt it should be carried off. I
felt that the ROTC cadets had their right for what

they felt to be right too—you know, a rights-be-
ing-right type of thing.

What was your reaction to the demonstrations?

Oh. [laughter] I reacted quite a bit to that.
When the students and those supporting the par¬
ticular' peace movement came into the stadium, I
was unaware of what had happened with the
motorcade at this point. I was in the stadium. (I’ve
traditionally tried to make Governor’s Day. I
thought it was a very nice ceremony.) So, I had
been unaware of the motorcade. As the students
marched into the stadium I kind of took a breath
and thought, “Oh, boy, here we go.” But they had
their right. They marched around the field in front
chanting, which was fine. People in the stands
observed them quietly. And they marched around.
I was kind of upset with them flipping the ca¬
dets’ hats on the back side of the field.

As they came around the south end of the
track, I kind of waited to see what they were go¬
ing to do at that point. And they continued to go
on again. They lost a few at that point, really a
substantial number. My reaction was, “Well,
maybe they had been given the permission to
come in and march around the field once.” But
they marched around again—and it takes quite
awhile to walk around the track. So they contin¬
ued going around, and I thought, “Well, OK,” and
I waited. Up until the point of their second march
around the track, I felt that was fine. They’ve
made their point. It had been done in a very or¬
derly fashion. They had chanted and had at times
cheered, which I was somewhat sorry to see. Then
they started into the stands—again, a big sigh—
and I’m thinking, “Well, now maybe we can pro¬
ceed,” because it had delayed the ceremony some¬
what. But then when they got into the stands they
continued with their catcalls.

There were those who tried to say, “Come
on now, fellows, cool it. You know, we’ve had
our turn.”

There were others who continued to encour¬
age more of the calls and comments out. And with
this I thought, “Oh, this is not right.” They had
had their say, so to speak, by their march; they

BEVERLY M. HUDSON

195

had made their point. They weren’t going to
change the minds of anyone in the stands, par¬
ticularly at that point, but in the American pro¬
cess they’d had a right to have their say. But they
continued these, and I continued to get more an¬
gry by the moment.

The one thing I can say is that they did allow
the announcer [to speak]. I mean, you could hear
who was getting what award. I felt very sorry for
those parents who were getting an award in the
name of their son who had been killed in Viet¬
nam and the catcalls that went out from that. But
as it went on I personally grew more and more
upset. I was just fit to be tied—furious. As I sat
there I found myself clenching my fists.

When the Sierra Guardsmen started their
drill, they had come out and had fixed their bayo¬
nets, which is a standard part of the Sierra Guard’s
drilling. They took two steps forward with the
bayonets, and they happened to be right there at
the point of the protestors. I almost was to the
point where I hoped they would march right
through them. And I caught myself, and I thought,
“This is a horrible reaction.” This is what upset
me. I was to the point of being so upset with what
was going on that, at that point, I could hardly
care less—you know, almost to the point of their
lives. I mean it really upset me. I feel that the
demonstrators, as I said, went far beyond what
they had a right to do.

Someone said, “Well, you should have ex¬
pected something like that because, after all, the
ROTC represents the very thing that they’re
against.” And I keep thinking, “Well, in their mind
it does, but this country would be in a heck of a
situation if we didn’t have a military force.” I
mean—to me, anyway—it happens to be a ne¬
cessity. I wish that no country had to have a mili¬
tary force, but as human nature seems to be, some¬
one is always trying to seize power.

To sum up my general reaction on it, as I said,
I was absolutely livid when I came back to my
office. I was so upset. Oh, I don’t know what I
was willing to do. I was going to make phone
calls and demand that something be done. I felt
that the students had been very unfair with Presi¬
dent Miller. I think that he probably has the most

open door of any university administrator around.
It’s hard for me to conceive anyone in his posi¬
tion on any campus being any more accessible. I
think he’s tried to listen to the students. I think
he’s tried to do many things for them. And after
two pleadings by him, I felt that the students had
let him down and the university down tremen¬
dously.

My reactions since have cooled some. I’m
still very upset with what happened, and my ini¬
tial reaction was based strictly on emotions, but
to what degree I felt action should be taken, I
would have been quite firm—no leeway given.
Since that time I think you take it, and you have
to consider everything that goes into it. And with
that, of course, I have mellowed some. I feel they
were very wrong in what they did.

You didn’t participate. You were simply «... ?

Well, I participated from the standpoint that
I was there to observe the ceremonies of
Governor’s Day. I would say, “Yes, I was a par¬
ticipant, but I was a participant on the other side.”

I see. You were there, and you felt the
administration’s reaction was as it should have
been in everything that they did?

Well, I felt that the university administration
did all they could. I thought that they had planned
well. I felt that the students let the administration
down tremendously. I think that the administra¬
tion and the ROTC cadets, in particular, are to be
commended for what they did and how they
handled themselves, because it was a keg of dy¬
namite. One spark could have set that thing, and
it could have blown sky high had the control of
the cadets not been what it was. And maybe we
should say, “Bless military training,” on the whole
thing, because I could see that whole field just
totally erupting.

It was a frightening thing to witness. As I said,
I was frightened by my reaction, and I consider it
somewhat typical of those, say, sitting in the
stands. I’m not a parent (obviously from how I
identified myself), but I think it was very typical.

196

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Since then, at the alumni association’s meetings
I have talked to several others who were in the
stands, and their reactions were very much like
mine. And it was frightening.

Well, I’m glad you brought that out, the possibil¬
ity of an eruption—it didn't occur.

Oh, it could have, as I said, just blown.

What was your reaction to the violence that did
break out right afterwards: the fire bombing at
the ROTC building and then right after that over
at Hobbit Hole?

Well, interestingly enough, I did overhear a
statement: “While we’re here to get it, we’re go¬
ing to get rid of the whole place.” It was by ... .
Well, I don’t know who it was by. I don’t know
whether they were a student or what. And you
kind of read into these things.

So when the bombing of the ROTC building
happened I thought, “Wonder if that was it?” But
that was supposed to have been the night of
Governor’s Day. This didn’t take place, I believe,
for two days afterwards.

Yes, it was two nights afterwards, I think. I
thought, oh, don’t let it be happening here—that
was my initial reaction. I think mine was a prayer¬
ful thought as much as anything: don’t let it hap¬
pen here.

Possibly because of where I work. I’m not so
prone to frying to jump to the conclusion that it
was a student on either side. I’m not saying that
it wasn’t, but I’m not saying that it was. As I said,
it’s bad that it happened, and I hope nothing more
of that nature happens.

You spoke to this just ever so slightly. You may
want to expand. What category of participants —
studen t or faculty or outsider—do you feel was
most effective in fomenting the violence that did
develop—the bombings?

As I said, I just can’t say on the bombings.
As far as the disruption in general is concerned, I

can’t completely discount outsiders. I believe that
there was a meeting the day after or within the
week of Governor’s Day in which there were
outsiders. It was handled very well. In fact, oth¬
ers moved in, and more or less took over the meet¬
ing. But had they ousted them immediately, this
would have again, I think, created a very nasty
situation.

I feel that the students’ emotions ran high,
some higher than others. So consequently, they
helped on the agitation. I feel that there were fac¬
ulty on both sides: those who believe in the peace
movement by peaceful means and those who felt
that more should be done.

I think this is something that’s happened, and
it’s unfortunately the outgrowth of these protests.
When you get people riled up, they’re going to
go out and do all the weirdest kind of things, and,
unfortunately, with very serious overtones to
them. So as I said, it was a combination. I don’t
think that on the University of Nevada campus
we have a lot of outside influence, but I don’t
think that we can put our heads in a hole in the
ground and say that there isn’t some.

But I don’t think that this has been the prime
force. I hope not. Of course, it doesn’t take many
outsiders if they’re trained in this manner. As I
said, they rile them up, and when they get riled
up, you never know what’s going to happen.
Emotions can run high. I know how high my
emotions ran and was really frightened by it.

Well, what actions do you feel were most effec¬
tive in preventing further violence and cooling
off the situation?

I feel that the administration policy in at¬
tempting to talk with them—allowing the meet¬
ings to be held. The lounge there in the Jot Travis
Student Union was used for an open discussion.
Faculty members were present to assist and see
that it be done in an orderly fashion. I think they
assisted greatly in this area. The memorial ser¬
vices that were held allowed the students to show,
in a peaceful nature, their feelings in these open
meetings, to talk it out. I think it cools emotions
down.

BEVERLY M. HUDSON

197

As I said, after you talk about things, you hear
someone else’s viewpoints, and both sides were
there. This is the interesting thing. But it was done
in such a way, and I think that this has helped and
is maybe one of the prime forces. The students
did have their chance to have a say, to talk about
it, to meet for their memorial under full auspices
of student activities. And I think this is impor¬
tant. They need to participate. But they managed
it in this way. And, as I said, I think the faculty
and the administration must be commended
greatly for their understanding in this area.

Well, how do you think events on campus affect
the university’s image with outsiders?

Of course, as I have said, I have been a mem¬
ber of the University of Nevada alumni execu¬
tive committee for seven or eight years now. So,
I get a certain amount of feeling from those who
love the university, who have been here as stu¬
dents and yet are away. Working here on cam¬
pus, one gets a different perspective about the
campus than the downtowners or those out in the
rest of the state.

Their reactions to the time when they had the
N. Edd Miller Day was one of tremendous pride.
Our students are handling things. They’re proud
of their administrator, which in itself was really
quite a newsmaker. Yet, when it happened, they
reacted violently. I think, even in talking with
neighbors and business associates, it was one that,
“Well, President Miller has got to take a stand.
We cannot allow it to happen. He’s going to have
to discipline these people. He’s going to have to
do this.” And then they really took a hard line.

The Board of Regents were at Governor’s
Day, so they weren’t listening to any secondhand
reports. Their general reaction the last couple of
meetings (oh, I guess it’s only been one, but I’m
kind of looking at the June meeting, also) is very
indicative of this reaction in the opposite direc¬
tion. I think it’s hurt the university tremendously,
because the feeling is still there. It’s not just the
initial reaction; it’s been going on. And I think
that most people feel that a harder line has to be

taken, because we don’t want to have happen here
what’s happened elsewhere. I think it’s going to
affect us with the legislature. I don’t see how it
can help.

Did you want to say any more about that par¬
ticular question?

No, I don’t think so, because it’s a general
feeling in one.

I see. OK. Do you feel that issues of academic
freedom are involved in participating in demon¬
strations?

Yes and no. I feel that they are not involved.
When we’re talking academic freedom, we usu¬
ally aren’t speaking of the professional staff of
the faculty at the university. If it’s a scheduled
university function, I do not see how anyone, how
any person—or professor—can be there acting
as an individual. I think he represents the univer¬
sity. I think he has a responsibility to the univer¬
sity. I don’t see where academic freedom is in
and of itself.

Well, I stalled out by saying yes and no, and
I really don’t think it does. Of course, it depends
on how we define academics, but, to me, this is
the classroom. And the [obscene] word was in
there, and the question was used as a demonstra¬
tion. Demonstrations normally do not take place
within a classroom. So, therefore, I have gone on
the outside. As I was saying, in the scheduled
university function such as Governor’s Day, I do
not feel that any faculty member there could be
acting totally on his own, but I don’t think it af¬
fects academic freedom. This man is free to teach
and is free to write. And his prime responsibility
here is to teach those students that walk through
the doors of his classroom in their scheduled
hours. He’s there to teach them the subject for
which they are assigned, also.

So, as I said, I really don’t think academic
freedom is a question at all—I think that they have
that. We went through this before. Back in about
1952, 1953, I think this question was raised in

198

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

much the same thing. But with demonstrations,
no. Academic freedom is not involved at all. I
think that there’s a difference between academic
freedom and academic license. As I said, I think
they’re there to teach the subject for which they
are assigned. If the subject falls in the area of
current events, possibly this can be discussed. But
I don’t think that the professor is there to subject
his views on the students. I have enough faith in
the student, or in the college-going person today,
that you give them both sides. Let them deter¬
mine; don’t slant it.

There was one professor on campus when I
was here—I believe he’s still on campus. It was a
political science course, and at the end of the
course no one in the class could definitely say
what politics that man was. I think that that’s the
highest compliment that any political science pro¬
fessor can be given, because he did not subject
his views on the students. He gave them this, and
from there they took it. I think that this is impor¬
tant. It’s not that the students can’t think on their
own. They can. But to be constantly bombarded
with one point of view agitating war is wrong.

As I said, I was a student on campus at the
time before in the early 1950s when the academic
freedom question came up. I know what can hap¬
pen. Students were upset. Faculty was upset. This
was the prime topic of conversation in the class¬
room. You know, you can’t say, “This is entirely
out of the realm of our discussion.” Let it go for
a few minutes and say, “But we do have a lesson
for the day,” and get back with it. I don’t think
that they do themselves, their cause, or anything
else, any good by allowing it to run rampant in
the classroom.

How can students or faculty—whichever you want
to speak to—he effective politically? Should they
attempt to influence political or governmental
policies?

Oh, yes. I think that this is every citizen’s not
only right, but responsibility to do so. I guess I’ll
have to say I belong to the establishment, but I
feel that we do have an order, channels. People

say, “Oh, all the red tape. We’re sick and tired of
the red tape.” But yet they have red tape within
their own organizations just the same. I’m one of
these that says, “Get in and work within.” I have
been very active myself at times, and I feel that
this is how they should do it. If it’s within the
university community, and it’s changes they want
affected here, there are ways of doing it. There
are channels set up. There are channels for the
faculty. There are channels for the students. And
on this campus, with the size that it is, I don’t
think that they’re impossible to get through.
They’re so much more effective that way—by
working that way they get a lot of people more
on their side. I don’t think that you get as many
people listening to you by the demonstration, by
the disruption and violence, as you do if you talk
in a very calm, sane manner.

Of course, they’re saying this is the estab¬
lishment talking, but I have to smile because it
won’t be long before they are, [laughter] and I
think that they’ll find much the same thing hap¬
pening to them. But I think that they should work
within established areas. Agree or disagree with
them—it doesn’t matter—I think it’s great that
students today are circulating a petition now for
a particular candidate for governor to get his name
on the ballot. I think it’s great because they are
now using one of the forms set up in this country.
Our form of government may not be perfect, but
it’s the best one around and nobody else has
shown us that there is a better way. I think the
students now have really taken on something, and
I think that’s tremendous. I think they should be
involved and go through the processes that we
have, because that’s the way to do it as far as I’m
concerned.

And that kind of leads into the next question:
Where is the peace movement in this area headed
now?

Oh, I do think in this area, very definitely it
is headed in that direction. At least now they have
a man that they feel would at least be more fa¬
vorable for their side. Of course, I said to them.

BEVERLY M. HUDSON

199

“How do you know that one of the other candi¬
dates won’t be?”

They said, “Well, the only names we’ve seen
mentioned about are this, that, and the other
thing.”

But they are now taking a form. I think that
the leaders of the peace movement today have
really been mostly the non-violent type. I don’t
think that the leaders themselves, the organizers
of the moratorium—they’re not the ones at
Governor’s Day. They truly were hoping for a
very peaceful movement. I think the moratorium
projects without the additional emotional situa¬
tions such as Cambodia and this type of thing
demonstrated that fact. So I do think that these
people, as I said, have been on the peaceful side.
It’s kind of interesting to note that. (I know one
of them, and he just recently graduated. I was
very pleased to see him at graduation in a cap
and gown going through the ceremony.)

But I think it also demonstrates that, for the
most part, these people were sincere in their, “This
is our way of showing you how we feel,” in a
peaceful way. And as I said, I don’t think anyone
really objects to that. Maybe some people would
rather not see that—the mass demonstrations—
no matter how peaceful they are, but that’s those
people’s rights. When I say that’s their right, I
think that this is another situation that’s now com¬
ing to the fore in all of this area: the fact that
other people have rights, too, and this kind of goes
over the whole spectrum of questions that we have
been going over.

People are saying, “Well, by golly, I have my
rights, and they’re stepping on my rights. Now,
they can do what they want to as long as they
don’t infringe on mine.” This reaction is coming
out more and more, which can only bring about a
confrontation if things aren’t handled properly.
Of course, the peace movement of Governor’s
Day is towards the end of the year. They’ve stalled
on the petitions for their candidate for governor.
Finals came along, and it’s amazing. It only goes
to show that even though they may be in that
movement, they’re basically on the university
campuses for their education, and they did cany
it through.

I think that the peace movement will be with
us. I do think that with it being an election year . . .
I’m very hopeful that they work within the pro¬
cesses. I don’t know what the reaction will be if
they’re not successful. I hope it’s one that would
be, “Well, we’re just going to have to continue
working within.” Possibly by getting into the pro¬
cess they’ll become a little more aware.

Are there any other comments you ’cl like to make ?

No, I think that that’s about it. I think, as I
said, the university administration must be al¬
lowed to handle things as they see fit. I think that
they have to be given a chance. I think they have
done a good job. We did have an outbreak of vio¬
lence. You can’t say it wasn’t, because the bomb¬
ings of the ROTC building and the Hobbit Hut
were a violent act.

For those who are on the outside, it’s wrong
for them to say that the president must do this
and must do that. He’s here. He knows the situa¬
tion. I think over the number of years that the
president has been here he’s demonstrated his
ability to administer the university, to talk with
the students, and to get along with the students.
And out of all the violence that is going on all
over this country—universities closing and ev¬
erything of this nature—his record stands well.

It’s something that we must do at this point.
We discussed this at great length at the alumni
association. He came and spoke at great length
to the alumni executive committee, and they were
calling, saying to him, “You must do this, you
must do that. Why aren’t these being prosecuted?
What students will be prosecuted?”

He said, “Any names that were brought to
me for violations of the university codes—I would
see that they are handled. However, if it came to
me on the student basis, it would go to the Stu¬
dent Judicial Council. But it’s important that we
get the word out that you must let them handle
it.” He hasn’t had a rocky career here at the uni¬
versity. It’s been a very smooth paved road, and
just because we’ve hit a few bumps I don’t think
that they should be as quick to criticize, as quick
to demand. I would like to see the Board of Re-

200

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

gents move a little more slowly and give a little
bit more thought to it. I can well understand their
fears, but, as I said, I think they ought to have a
little bit more faith in the administration. Because
I think he can see it through on the whole thing
as long as he has those people standing behind
him.

He can’t take it from both sides. One of the
interesting comments made at the close of this
alumni meeting that I went to was that, “Well, I
saw President Miller upstairs in the dining com¬
mons, and he was being grilled up one side and
down the other by the students. And tonight he’s
downstairs in the Pyramid Lake Room being
grilled up one side and down the other by the
alumni and the citizens at large in the commu¬
nity.” It’s kind of hard to be taking it from both
sides. But he fielded them well, and I think that
we have to stand behind him. There are times,
possibly, that someone loses sight of where they
should be going, but I don’t think he’s been that
way.

Good.

Thank you.

Procter Hug Jr.

June 22, 1970

Now, for the record if you ’ll say your name and
your residence and your position.

My name is Procter Hug Jr. I reside in Reno,
Nevada. I am chairman of the Board of Regents.

And this is why you think you were chosen to be
interviewed, right?

[laughter] I believe.

This is the next question, and sometimes it’s kind
of a silly question. What was your reaction to
President Nixon’s decision to go into Cambodia ?

My reaction was that I thought that it prob¬
ably was a mistake. I felt that the president had
to have more knowledge about the situation than
I did, or that any of the general public did. But I
was concerned that the national unrest, which it
was bound to cause, would not be worth the mili¬
tary advantage that was going to be gained by
going into Cambodia. I also wondered whether it
was not a mistake in any event, even taking the
fact for granted that there would be, say, some

military advantage. I also feel that it was widen¬
ing the war and had severe peril as far as further
involvement in a war that has proven to be a great
mistake.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on this cam¬
pus?

I think it was very closely related to it.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodia decision?

Well, I was not surprised that it occurred. I
expected it to occur after President Nixon’s an¬
nouncement. I was sorry that it occurred in the
violent way in which it did in many areas of the
country, because I feel that’s never justified. I
regretted it a great deal, but I was not surprised
in view of the developments in recent years.

Turning now to the Governor i Day activities here
on campus: what did you think of the arrange¬
ments made for the observance of Governor’s
Day—the formal arrangements for the ceremo¬
nial observance of Governor’s Day?

202

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, this is an event that has been held for
probably twenty or thirty years. It has always been
held at the stadium as long as I recall, even from
the time I was a student here. It is a regular class¬
room activity—all military students are required
to attend. It’s the ceremony that is designed to
present the honors and is sort of the fulfillment
of the year of ROTC training. I felt the arrange¬
ments were just the same as they had been for
many years.

There was one difference, and that difference
was that there was a reception beforehand at the
Travis lounge and a motorcade going from the
Travis lounge to the stadium. In the past there
has been a motorcade, but there was no reception
ahead of time. It was a meeting at the administra¬
tion building in which all the officials met, got in
cars, and drove to the stadium. There might have
been one difference in that there, perhaps, was
more time for counter-movements to develop than
there had been in other years.

Now, what was your reaction to the demonstra¬
tion?

Well, I was quite upset by it, because I felt
that it interrupted a regular university function.
The events on the field were very distasteful.
There were some portions of it that were more so
than others. The worst thing to me was the play¬
ing of taps and the mockery that took place when
Mr. and Mrs. Wisham came up from Bakersfield
to award a five-hundred dollar scholarship in
memory of their son who was killed in Vietnam.
They marched onto the field to give the award,
and someone in the stands played taps. I thought
that was about as tasteless as I could imagine.

I was distressed by the whole event in the
catcalls from the audience, and the participation
of some of the faculty members in encouraging
that sort of disruption—after the president had
twice asked the assembled group of demonstra¬
tors to be quiet. I was extremely disappointed,
because I had made an arrangement with one of
the faculty members [James Hulse] when I could
see this large group marching toward the stadium:
that they would march around the field three times

and then march out. I felt that would avert what
happened and would also give an opportunity for
those people to express their views, which were
related to the war and opposed to the war. (As
I've noted. I'm also opposed to the war.) I thought
that that would have given them an opportunity
to do that, and yet not disrupt the regular univer¬
sity function of ROTC day, Governor’s Day.

What did you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration and of the Governor’s Day
ceremony?

Well, the most effective part of the demon¬
stration is a hai'd question to answer because it
got out of hand. If the objective were that of en¬
couraging the general public to adhere to the view
of those who were demonstrating, it was not only
not achieved, but it was alienated. So, I don’t think
the demonstration was effective at all in that re¬
spect. I would say that to have been effective, the
demonstration could have occurred—the group
could have marched around the track and marched
out—and that would have done the trick. It would
have shown to the public that this is the type of
thing that can be handled peacefully without dis¬
ruption, and I think that would have gotten con¬
siderable support.

Even more effective than that would have
been if they held a counter-demonstration in the
other area of the campus as it was originally de¬
signed and not marched at all. That would have
been better yet, because even the marching around
the track was kind of a last-minute thing to avert
what could have been a rather violent confronta¬
tion.

In retrospect about the conflict that developed
up there at the stadium, what do you think the
various factions should have done, in terms of
the ROTC? You’ve indicated what you thought
about the demonstration and the university ad¬
ministration.

Well, I think the ROTC handled it beautifully.
I don’t think they could have done it better. It
was a very trying situation. Colonel Hill and his

PROCTER HUG JR.

203

staff were, of course, quite angry and upset, but
they didn’t let it show when they were speaking,
and proceeded with the ceremony as it would
normally have been done. The general that was
here from the Sixth Army understood and felt that
it was proceeding correctly.

I thought that the ROTC students handled it
magnificently. There they were assembled. Some
of the demonstrators knocked off hats and did
little annoying things that could have really made
some tempers flare. They did not. The students
did not break ranks. I thought they did very well.

I’d say the tensest moment was when the drill
team was marching with fixed bayonets, and there
was a group of demonstrators assembled on the
field. The area where the drill took place took
this marching group about fifteen or twenty feet
into the group of demonstrators. And I thought
that it wouldn’t have taken much to have had a
real serious incident with somebody injured.

I noted at that time, and it was interesting to
me, that the danger of that kind of situation is
that there can be hotheads on either side. There
were those in the audience who were shouting
things like, “Stick one of them,” or something
like that. You could see with that kind of an atti¬
tude, something like Kent State could happen
easily, just from someone making a first move.
And that’s where I was, sitting in the stands liv¬
ing in horror that someone was going to lose his
temper on either side, and then it could have been
a real melee.

What do you think the administration should have
done ?

I suppose that one suggestion was to have
called off Governor’s Day. I think that would have
been a mistake. As long as ROTC is a recognized
function of the University of Nevada, I think it
should proceed in the manner in which it has in
the past, and in the manner in which it was sched¬
uled to proceed by the faculty in charge. I think
the administration had talked to and warned the
demonstrators that there should be no interfer¬
ence with the ROTC program, and I believe the

administration thought that this would be what
would happen.

That’s what had happened the previous year.
The counter-demonstration or ceremony was held
on the lawn there in front of Manzanita Lake,
and this is what the administration believed was
going to happen again. Unfortunately, there were
those who talked the students and other people
involved in the demonstration into doing some¬
thing more.

I think maybe, having had that experience,
that in another time the administration could take
steps. But having the history that we’ve had, I
don’t think that they’ve made a mistake in rely¬
ing on those in charge of the demonstration to
keep it where it would not be disruptive. I think
in another year it should be made very clear that
sanctions will be imposed under our rules and
regulations for any of those who do disrupt the
event. And I think that should probably be pointed
out sometime before the Governor’s Day next
year. There was a third part to your question. What
should . . . ?

Well, the three factions: the ROTC, the demon¬
strators, and the university administration. And
I think you indicated what you thought the dem¬
onstrators should have done there. If you’d like
to expand, do.

Well, maybe I’ll just add that particularly
some of the faculty members that were there tried
to really keep it within bounds, and tried to have
the students leave after they marched around the
track. Other faculty members led the students into
the stands and kept them there. It’s very hard to
control a mob in any way—so, if a group moves
into the stands, it was too late then to do much
about that.

I thought that some of the faculty members
did a great deal to keep the demonstration within
confines, particularly during that tense situation
when they were on the field. I observed a num¬
ber of them. I could mention names if you like or
not, but....

Suit yourself.

204

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, I noticed Professors Backman, Hulse,
and Harvey all were trying to keep the students
confined and trying to keep them from spreading
out on the field where there would be more dan¬
ger of an incident. They fried to talk the students
out of doing such things as running through the
ranks or tearing down the flag, which was sug¬
gested by some of them. So I think those faculty
members, and others that were with them that I
just might not know about, did a great deal to
keeping it confined to what it was.

There were other faculty members, such as
Adamian and Maher, who tried to keep the thing
going and keep the disruption continuing. The
president asked them to be quiet: “We’ve seen
your demonstration; we’ve heard your point of
view. Now, let’s proceed with the scheduled func¬
tion.” After that, Adamian in particular was lead¬
ing cheers and encouraging the students to dis¬
rupt, whereas most of the students did not and
observed what the president asked.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the fire bombings?

Well, that’s often an unfortunate by-product
of something like this that, of course, cannot be
attributed to any particular' group or to these dem¬
onstrators. As a matter of fact, we don’t know
that they were Nevada students. I would suspect
they weren’t. I think it’s just one of the unfortu¬
nate after-consequences of this type of disrup¬
tion. It’s kind of a heady thing. People get to¬
gether and talk and get ideas and say, “In order to
really get attention, we must do something more.”

That’s why it’s my feeling that first you got
to have the rules clear. And when they’re clear,
and if they’re broken, they’ve got to be en¬
forced—there have to be sanctions imposed. Be¬
cause if you don’t impose it at the lower level
when something less significant takes place—like
the disruption and the catcalls and the blowing
of taps and that sort of thing—if you don’t do it
at that stage, then the people get together and say,
“Well, what do we really have to do to shake up
the troops? What do we have to do to get some
attention?”

Well, if you give them attention by enforcing
some sanctions at a lower level, then they don’t
have to do the fire bombing and the destroying
of computer centers and those things that have
occurred on other campuses in order to get atten¬
tion. It also, I think, is important from the aspect
of the type of people who are attracted to it. If no
sanctions are imposed and students and faculty
can proceed with immunity from any type of sanc¬
tion, it’s kind of fun; it’s exciting to do things
that disrupt people. And it’s particularly appeal¬
ing to this age group. Therefore, if you encour¬
age that by granting immunity or amnesty and
not enforcing the minor regulations, then I think
you’re really asking for some more severe trouble.

In my opinion, that’s the mistake that’s been
made on so many other campuses throughout the
counfry. This isn’t any great wisdom on our part,
because we have the advantage of watching what
has happened elsewhere as a result of the courses
of action that they have chosen. But I would say
that we would be making a great mistake if we
don’t benefit by watching it and take a different
course.

It’s interesting to me that right after the Ber¬
keley incident, I had the opportunity of consult¬
ing with the university attorney for University of
California, who was very upset by the fact that
the administration did not enforce the regulations
and did deal directly with the students, did not
require them to go through student government.
They didn’t enforce the rules and regulations, but
sort of waived them in their case. He really pre¬
dicted that it would lead to this sort of thing. I’ve
kept that in the back of my mind and have seen
that work out, and it’s caused me to think that it’s
very important that rules be established and be
enforced.

What category of participant involved in the af¬
fair—the students, the faculty, or outside influ¬
ences—do you think was most important in fo¬
menting violence on the campus?

The faculty. I think the faculty have a great
deal of influence on students of this age. It’s natu¬
ral that they should, because they have had a great

PROCTER HUG JR.

205

deal more experience, they’re very bright and full
of ideas, and they challenge the students—and
it’s natural for the students to seek to emulate
their instructor. I think that this is true, not only
on this campus, but throughout the country. I think
the faculty have been the ones that have really
incited the students into the actions that have been
taken.

Do you think outsiders are important?

Yes, very important, and I think there were a
number of outsiders involved. I think that with
the California schools being out—the colleges
and universities having been recessed during this
time—there were, I know, students here from
California. They had experienced the excitement
of their strikes and demonstrations there, and they
made the students here feel like they were going
to some little isolated Podunk university if they
didn’t get in the mainstream and get involved with
this type of activity and make their opinions felt.

A month or two before, I particularly noticed
when [Harry] Edwards from [Berkeley] came up
and spoke. He had quite an influence on quite a
number of students and made them feel that way:
that if you really believe that there exists social
injustice, and you want to do something about it,
you’ve got to make your opinions felt by doing
something disruptive or violent. That’s what he
thinks, and he really instills this in people, makes
the student feel like, “Well, I really want to do
something—and the only way I’m going to do it
is by striking out at the ‘establishment.’”

What kinds of actions do you feel were most im¬
portant in cooling off the situation after the fire
bombings?

Well, I thought that the noon ceremony and
that candlelight ceremony were excellent in do¬
ing that. It gave an opportunity to those who were
violently opposed to the war to express their
views, to make their feelings known, and to point
this out to the community. I thought both of those
were very good. It gave them an alternative to
disruptive tactics.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image outside?

Oh, I think they affect it very adversely. I
think the community is concerned, not so much
with what happened, but with what could hap¬
pen and what has happened elsewhere. I think
there were a great many of the people—individu¬
als who were at Governor’s Day or read about it
or saw it on TV—who were extremely upset that
this occurred. But, by far, a greater number were
not so concerned, and sort of considered this a
mild type of disruption in comparison to what
had occurred elsewhere, but were very concerned
that we not follow the same trend. I think that the
vast majority of people are worried about that—
that it not escalate. They feel that unless some¬
thing is done at this stage, it will escalate as it
has in other colleges and universities.

I think that the image of higher education
throughout the nation is at a very, very low ebb
because of these activities of campus violence.
And I think that the general public in Nevada,
which is really rather conservative, feel that this
is not the type of thing that we in Nevada have to
tolerate. We’re an independent group of people
and an independent state (and always have been),
and I think they feel if the rest of the country
wants to go this outlandish route, Nevada doesn’t
have to take that same path. I think it would very
seriously have affected the university, insofar as
legislative support and gifts to the university, if
the university didn’t do something to make known
that it was going to take a strong stand and was
not going to allow the university to follow the
same path as some of the California and the Ivy
League schools.

What can the un iversity do to focus public opin ¬
ion, and to explain any situation that might arise?

Well, of course, I thought that it was essen¬
tial that something be done very quickly to have
the community feel that their elected officials and
the university administration were going to take
this thing in hand and see that this type of activ¬
ity didn’t occur in the future—that we didn’t fol-

206

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

low the series of escalations that had been fol¬
lowed elsewhere. My own view was that it was
important that regents right away seek to invoke
sanctions against those who had participated dis-
ruptively, violently, and that this be done, of
course, according to the code.

I felt that we obviously were not going to be
able to identify everyone who yelled out at
Governor’s Day. But I felt that it was important
that those who were obviously involved in dis¬
rupting and stopping the motorcade, and inciting
others to continue after the president asked them
to quit, should have firm sanctions imposed.
That’s one thing.

The second thing, of course you’ve read in
the papers, was the proposing of a code. We’d
asked for a code of conduct to be developed. Well,
it’d been over a year, but specifically it was re¬
ferred to in the minutes of last July, and none had
been developed by the faculty or students or ad¬
ministration. And I felt enough time had elapsed.
You see, you can get a lot of interest in someone
developing a bill of rights—like the student bill
of rights—because the students are anxious to
protect their rights, and they can be really en¬
thused about developing that. It’s less appealing
to be developing a code of conduct, so I think
that no one really took it in tow or took it in hand.
I can understand how it was put off, but the fact
was that it was put off.

We had now reached a situation when it was
important that we have a code of conduct, that
the rules be very clear, that they be in a form that
they could be given in a little pamphlet to each
student—so that he knew very well that these are
the rules for this campus, and if this isn’t appeal¬
ing to the student, then perhaps he should go to
another school. The same with the faculty: it was
important that each faculty on each campus real¬
ize that these were the rules for the two campuses
(the university here in Reno and the one in Las
Vegas) and that these were going to be enforced.

It’s interesting that actually, probably, mostly
all of the rules would have been understood to
have been the rules in any event—but they were
generalized, they were scattered throughout vari¬

ous publications, and you couldn’t really point
to a section very easily. I think one of the really
important things in any type of enforcement is
that the rules be very clearly defined and avail¬
able, that everyone understand them, and then that
they be enforced. I felt it was also important that
the public realize that the regents were concerned,
and that we intended to see that we did have a
code, that it was clear, and that it was enforced.
And I feel that that did a lot toward getting the
public behind the university—feeling that the
university was solving its own problems—rather
than taking their ire to the legislature.

It was particularly important that it be done
right away, right in the June meeting, because we
are now going into an election campaign time,
where the next several months people campaign¬
ing for the legislature or other offices are going
to be finding issues and discussing them. The
university would have been a prime target for
potshots from all directions from those who were
opposed to the disruption and the violence that
took place on the Reno campus, and indeed to
the disruption that took place on the Las Vegas
campus. (It was less publicized, but there was
blocking of doorways during class hours. These
were cleared, but it was a situation where it was
kind of borderline all along there as to whether
there was going to be real prevention for people
going to classes. And there was fervent implied
intimidation against anyone going into a class
with all the people standing in front of the door¬
way and leaving a two-foot passage.)

I think these things were very important. I
think the enforcement and the code were very
important in getting this community support back
behind the university. And I think we’ve got the
support for the state and the community behind
the university, so long as we pursue this course.
But I don’t think that the people at large will tol¬
erate disruption as it occurred elsewhere without
some sort of punitive action—and that will take
place through the legislators, because the people
would call their assemblymen or senators to in¬
form them that they wanted some sort of action
taken. And, indeed, the assemblymen and sena-

PROCTER HUG JR.

207

tors themselves feel this way. If no direct puni¬
tive action were taken, I think we would find that
we would have very few new programs approved;
that the faculty raises would have a very difficult
time being passed; that benefits such as pension
or fringe benefits would be very hard to come by.
I think that we would find that our building re¬
quests . . . they wouldn’t be entirely turned down,
but we would be penalized in some way by not
getting the request. I think the argument would
be made: “Well, if you can’t keep them from be¬
ing defaced and burned, then we’re not going to
build you buildings.”

I think it’s a very, very serious problem. I see
it being faced in other states right now—there
have been significant punitive actions taken by
legislators. And I can’t say really that it’s a bad
thing. I can’t really feel badly from a university
standpoint, but it’s too bad to penalize the stu¬
dents who are not disrupting for the action of a
few, which, in effect, it does. On the other hand,
unless the people can get their regents to act, the
only other course they have is through the legis¬
lature.

The people are very upset, and they should
be. I think that if they wish to have their feelings
felt, and if they want to call a halt to this kind of
campus violence that is occurring throughout the
nation, then the people will find a way by doing
it through the purse strings of the legislature—
and really, it’s their only course. I think that the
university community—faculty and students—
have been given perhaps too free a hand. Maybe
I ought to phrase that another way: maybe they
haven’t been given too free a hand, but the free
hand that they have been given has been abused,
and therefore, I think it’s going to suffer some
restriction. I’m not referring necessarily to the
University of Nevada, at all, but I’m referring
nationally. Responsibility that’s been given to
faculty and students has not been borne or car¬
ried out well, and therefore, I think they’ll find
that there will be restrictions imposed. This is
certainly much less applicable at the University
of Nevada on either campus than elsewhere in
the nation, but the possible trend is there.

Do you think issues of academic freedom are in¬
volved in participating in a demonstration?

I think that’s a bogus issue. I think it’s some¬
thing that’s immediately said, but is not true. Our
university code, which has been recently referred
to and quoted in the conduct code, has an excel¬
lent definition of academic freedom, which was
developed by the faculty here. Academic free¬
dom really applies to the freedom to explore ideas
in the classroom freely without having the opin¬
ions of the administrators or regents or univer¬
sity officials forced upon them.

But as the code defines it, academic freedom
really is a right to present both sides of an issue
judicially. It is not the right to use the classroom
as a platform for advocating one’s own particu¬
lar political philosophy. It’s a way of exploring
ideas. The faculty member has a duty to present
his ideas, perhaps—certainly to present them—
but also to present the contrary view. I think the
very best faculty member is the one who, when
you leave the class, you don’t really know how
he feels. Because otherwise you’re not teaching
the students how to think, as much as you’re fill¬
ing them full of your ideas. And I don’t think
that’s the idea of a university. So, if we consider
academic freedom being the right to freely teach
your subject, to explore it in a truly scholarly
manner, and to teach it in a scholarly manner,
then this isn’t being infringed at all by restric¬
tions on disruptive tactics.

Then, I think academic freedom sometimes
is used in a broader sense—that is, the freedom
to speak as a citizen. Well, I don’t think that’s
really academic freedom. I think that’s the free¬
dom that a faculty member has that is equivalent
to any other citizen in this country—and that is
to express his opinion on the issues of the day,
and he certainly should not be restricted in this
regard. I think that the quotations in the univer¬
sity code are very good, though, in calling to mind
that the faculty member is viewed with particu¬
lar' respect, and he is viewed as a professional
man. Therefore, his actions and expressions are
going to receive greater notice and attention than

208

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

the average person, and his affiliation with the
university is always going to be apparent. And
therefore, I think it’s vital that he express his views
in a scholarly manner, in a way that corresponds
with the dignity of the position that he holds. I
think that no one would object to his expressing
an opinion that’s contrary to an administrator or
a regent or any university official.

If the faculty member expresses it in a man¬
ner that is undignified, that is beneath the posi¬
tion that he holds in the community, that is not
scholarly or not well thought out (and evidences
the fact that he’s talking off the top of his head),
then what I think he will find is that he’s not go¬
ing to be thought well of, and the university, con¬
sequently, is not going to be thought well of.

For example, a person who was very contro¬
versial in expressing his views and did not, in my
opinion, ever violate academic freedom was
Erling Skoipen, who was here in the Philosophy
Department. Fie held views that were contrary to
a great majority of the community at that time.
Fie was very much opposed to the Vietnam War
at the time of the Bay of Tonkin. Fie expressed
these views. There was a great deal of public re¬
action. The regents and the administration were
very protective of him and of his rights to ex¬
press his view—although I must add, with some
sadness, that the general public did not realize he
was right. Fie called this into question and did it
in a very professional manner and made speeches
about it. Now, that’s the kind of thing where it
was a very unpopular political view at that time,
and we had all sorts of John Birch letters and so
forth wanting the university to fire this man. Now,
that would have made a real infringement of this
man’s right as a citizen to speak—I wouldn’t say
of academic freedom. To my knowledge, he al¬
ways presented both sides of issues in his classes,
so he was really following the principle of aca¬
demic freedom. And even though there was a
great public outcry, the administration backed him
to the hilt.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally? Or should they try to influence govern¬
mental policies?

They should be trying to influence govern¬
mental policies as citizens, just the same way as
we all should. But I heartily disagree with the
concept that the university should be a base for
political action. That’s not its function. There
should be other organizations to accomplish this.
The university is an organization for education
and for learning—to explore truth, to seek knowl¬
edge, to impart knowledge to students, and to
teach students how to think. It is not to achieve
action.

That’s one of the great mistakes, I think, that
higher education is making in this country: cre¬
ating the university as being an organization that
should achieve action. It’s the organization that
should calmly deliberate. It’s the type of organi¬
zation that should write the critical history after
the facts are all in. It’s not the type of organiza¬
tion that should be achieving action. Now, this
isn’t to say that the same group of people, under
a different organizational base, shouldn’t be seek¬
ing to achieve action by petitions, by demonstra¬
tions, by contacting legislators, by trips to Wash¬
ington, D.C., or by drafting proposed rules. All
of these things are vital to all of us as citizens,
but it’s not the function of the university to lead
this front. It’s the function of the university to
coolly and dispassionately explore the vast knowl¬
edge that seems to be immersing all of us and to
impart this to students.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed now—in the Reno campus area?

Well, I really sense that it’s headed in the right
direction. I think that the reaction has been such
that those thinking members of the peace move¬
ment are certainly trying to hold it within appro¬
priate bounds—both from the standpoint of try¬
ing to avert violence, but also from the standpoint
of being effective, of trying to win converts to
their point of view. They’re trying to get the
people in positions of power to be well aware of
the fact that the feeling of the people in this area
is toward peace, and frying to get out of Vietnam
and not to have this type of involvement in the
future.

PROCTER HUG JR.

209

I think that the peace movement in this area,
at least the thinking members of it, is taking a
turn that is also occurring nationally. I see, for
example, groups of lawyers that have made the
trip to Washington, D.C., to consult. The same
sort of thing is occurring among students and
groups elsewhere—to take time out to do legal
research at law schools to see what could be done,
and to organize to back candidates that feel as
they do about the war. This is the way to be truly
politically effective, and I think that’s the turn
it’s taking here. I think, actually, it’s the direction
that had been taken by the great majority in any
event, but I think that’s the turn here.

Do you have other comments you ’cl like to make
now about this whole situation ?

Well, I think I’ve commented long on each
of your questions and probably gone afield. I
would think that maybe only this as a conclu¬
sion: that it’s vital to the university that it con¬
tinue to have the respect of the general public, of
the state, because if it doesn’t, it will not be an
effective educational institution. I think that if
violence or disruption is allowed to be tolerated
in the future, it will greatly damage the overall
objectives of the university. For that reason, I
think it’s essential that those of us who have any¬
thing to say about the administration be sure to
invoke those rules and enforce those rules so that
it does not occur.

I think it’s important that faculty and students
be made aware of the fact, not even from an en¬
forcement standpoint, but from a desire to get the
right thing done, that they must do the best they
can for mankind and the people of our own state,
and to preserve the image and the effectiveness
of the university. For this reason, I hope, and I’m
quite confident, that other avenues of political
expression will take place and that the violence
and disruption will not.

James Hulse

June 12, 1970

So now, for the record, if you’ll say your name,
and your residence, and your position.

James Hulse, and Reno, and professor of his¬
tory in the local History Department.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Well, I suppose I was chosen to be inter¬
viewed because I was involved in several of the
events that occurred here last month. Governor’s
Day and subsequently. I’ve been quite active in
talking to a lot of students. I think everybody
knows that I had quite an involvement in the ten¬
sion that was existing here.

What was your own reaction to President Nixon’s
decision to go into Cambodia with troops?

Well, maybe I should say I’ve been opposed
to the war in Vietnam. I thought it was a terrible
error for a long time. I thought the enlargement
of the war into Cambodia was a serious error,

and I think it depressed a lot of us—I for one,
who felt that Nixon was withdrawing from the
war. The Cambodian operation seemed to be a
thrust in the opposite direction.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

Well, in my opinion, the Cambodia decision
frustrated many people who felt that we were on
the road toward disengagement. And coming on
the heels of that, the Kent State affair—in which
the four students were killed—just frustrated and
inflamed many people who might otherwise have
remained very quiet. So that those two episodes
coming together had a great deal to do with the
attitude that existed not only here, but on cam¬
puses all across the country.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodia decision?

Well, I, like many people in the academic
community, was frustrated and appalled. I sent
wires to the president immediately, and I’m sure

212

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Jim Hulse, 1970s.

many others did too. It seemed to me not really
surprising—even the president said it was not
surprising—that there were protests against that
action after they occurred. The fact that the pro¬
test was so great was surprising. The fact that
there was violence associated with them was de¬
plorable. but given the tension that existed, I sup¬
pose one shouldn’t even be surprised by that, al¬
though we always are.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangements
made for the observance of Governor’s Day?

I think the arrangements were completely
logical, and there was nothing unusual about
them. I, for one, do not feel that Governor’s Day
should have been canceled. I have wished for
many years that Governor’s Day were more than
just a ceremony to honor the Military Department

and its students. But certainly because it has be¬
come a tradition, and because the governor has
performed this function for many years, it’s not
surprising that this function should have been
performed. I think had I been a member of the
administration, I would have been disinclined to
cancel it. I don’t think the ceremony should have
been canceled because of these events.

It would have been nice, and I think it would
have obviated some trouble, if there had been
brief remarks in which the tension had been ac¬
knowledged, and some sort of regret had been
expressed for those who have died as a result of
violence. I think if that had happened, we might
well have avoided some of our difficulties. I know
the administration was encouraged to do that sort
of thing, to allow just a few minutes in which the
protesters could have had their symbolic state¬
ment.

What was your reaction to the demonstration ?

I was not aware there was going to be a dem¬
onstration. I think I had seen that morning, or the
day before, an indication that there was going to
be a rally in the bowl, down at the Manzanita
Bowl. I chose to go down there at the time classes
were dismissed. There had been a statement, I
think, in the Sagebrush (I’m not quite sure, it
seems to me it was in the Sagebrush ), but I saw a
printed or a mimeographed statement saying that
there would be a march, a symbolic march, from
the bowl up around Mackay School of Mines and
back to the bowl. I had fully expected that kind
of thing as an alternative to Governor’s Day,
which was going on at the stadium.

When we reached the bowl, it was at about
11:00 that morning, the morning of Governor’s
Day. There was obviously a great deal of tension,
and a great deal of excitement that I had not an¬
ticipated. A few remarks were made that were
very indiscreet in my opinion, and some remarks
were made that were very rational, but in short
order, the crowd was moving toward the stadium,
encouraged by a few of the louder voices in the
group, and it became very frightening at that point.

JAMES HULSE

213

I walked along, and when the crowd reached the
plaza in front of the student union building where
the military cars were parked, it was quite clear
that a mob of people had stopped the cars—not a
mob of people, but a few in the advance of it. A
crowd was moving up that was in effect a mob
because it was out of control, and there was no
leadership that was evidently managing things.

Through good luck, two or three members of
the faculty—I remember Bob Harvey, I think Jim
Richardson was there, and a couple of students—
cleared the crowd away from the first car, and it
moved on. I happened to be up on the library steps
at the time. I was not in the front group, where
the cars were stopped, and I came upon the scene
after the cars were stopped. And just by luck the
crowd was dispersed at that point, and the cars
moved on. But at that point I became very fright¬
ened because this seemed to be a crowd out of
control.

Shortly thereafter, by the gymnasium, I saw
Procter Hug, who is chairman of the board of re¬
gents, and I said to him, “I think this is a danger¬
ous situation. I believe this situation’s out of con¬
trol, and I’m frightened.”

I subsequently learned that apparently he had
been in one of the cars that was stopped, and he
said, “What do you think should be done?” And I
had no answer, [laughter]

I didn’t have any plan, but I said to him, “I’ll
run to the head of the group and see if we can
persuade them to get it stopped.” When I got to
the head of the group, Paul Adamian and others
were there, and I asked three or four people—
Paul was one of them—if there was not some way
to stop the group, and to decide what was going
to happen. There had been some talk in the bowl
of walking into the stadium and making noises,
and it seemed to me at the very least there should
be a plan as to what form the protest would take.
Some people had made reference to the idea of
disrupting the ceremony, although I was con¬
vinced from the remarks that most people did not
want to disrupt.

Well, as we walked along, one of the people
said to me, “What do you suggest? Do you have

a plan?” And I didn’t, except to try to get them
stopped. So finally I think I suggested, or some¬
one suggested ... I participated in the sugges¬
tion that we go once around the stadium and out,
as a means of registering the protest, and there
seemed to be some consensus for that (although
when three or four people are talking at once,
and when the crowd is moving, it’s hard to get a
consensus).

Finally, one of the people said, “Let’s go three
times around the field and out.” (Again, it’s hard
to remember which one said it, but it may have
been Paul Adamian—I did most of my talking
with him, but I’m not certain it was he.) There
seemed to be a consensus to that idea as we got
toward the parking lot up there south of the sta¬
dium.

I ran back to Procter Hug and said, “I think if
you let them go around three times, we can get
them out.” Although, this was only a guess, I sup¬
pose. I believe on that basis, the group was al¬
lowed to go into the stadium, but not stop at the
gate. I don’t think they could have been stopped
at the gates with the number of police who were
there, and it was very wise to let the group go in.

It became clear to me along the way that there
were a number of faculty members, maybe as
many as eight or ten, who were there for the pur¬
pose of trying to keep things quiet. And there was
no prearrangement to that, but certainly Bob
Harvey and people like Carl Backman, Jim
Richardson, and others were trying to talk to stu¬
dents. Most of the students were not angry. There
were a few people being very noisy and very pro¬
vocative, most of whom I don’t know, but there
were a number of faculty members in effect say¬
ing “keep it cool.”

As we stalled around the stadium, odd things
were happening. There were a few students, ba¬
sically of good intention, who wanted to be far
more rambunctious. As we went around the first
time, the young men, the ROTC cadets were
standing in ranks. One or two men wanted to
break ranks, and go through their ranks, as a way
of disrupting things. I heard Bob Harvey say on a
couple of occasions, “Stay on the track. Don’t
leave the track.”

214

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

As we went around, I think the second time,
one of the young men saw the American flag and
said, “Let’s take it down, tear down the flag.”
And one of my colleagues said, “Stop it! Don’t!
You stay on the Lack.” If he had taken down the
flag, obviously we’d have had another confron¬
tation of some kind. There were a few odd things
like that. So the situation was basically out of the
control of any individual, although Paul Adamian
was marching at the head and was very excited.
He was not really in control of the situation, and
he wasn’t leading most of us, although something
was operating that was very frightening.

(Maybe I should interrupt just a minute.
When some of the students to whom I’ve talked,
and I’ve talked to quite a number who were ex¬
cited, and a number interested in peace, and a
number who call themselves members of the revo¬
lution . . . one of them urged me to read, two or
three months ago, Abbie Hoffman’s book. Revo¬
lution for the Hell of It, which is a very provoca¬
tive manual on how to make a revolution. I don’t
know whether there were any Abbie Hoffmans
in that crowd, or any intentional troublemakers,
but certainly the kind of thing that he described
was working. There were a few people in there
who, either intentionally or unintentionally, were
trying to provoke and create the kind of excite¬
ment and hysteria that can lead to confrontation.
And it was that that was most frightening, and
I’m sure most of the young people who were there
were not participants in that kind of thing, but
they may well have been victims of it, if hysteria
had prevailed. This is the reason some of us, I
think, were trying to calm it, because if you’re
going to fight the Abbie Hoffman syndrome,
you’ve got to be right where the action is; you
can’t do it by a plea from the platform, I don’t
think. At least when that was tried it didn’t work.)

OK. The second time around the field, the
crowd began to spill into the stands. This was
shortly after one of them had talked about taking
down the flag, and that little episode had delayed
two or three of us. I was halfway back in the col¬
umn, and the first thing I knew, the students were
spilling into the stands, not by previous design,
but as far as I know, it just happened that way.

There had been some comment down in the
bowl, about, “Let’s go into the stands and make
noise,” but this was a suggestion of individuals,
and not the plan of any group as far as I know. Of
course, as they were going into the stands, Procter
Hug appeared and asked me, he said, “I thought
they were going around three times and out.” I
said, “I did too.” But there was nothing that any
individual could do at that point, it seemed to me.

President Miller did make an appeal over the
loudspeaker to people to take their seats and to
observe the ceremony, and most people—even
among the protestors—did. There were those who
were noisy, who yelled insults of various kinds,
and who generally tried to behave in a manner
that would detract from the ceremony. I was em¬
barrassed for that kind of thing, but again several
faculty members were on the scene, trying to talk
to the most belligerent—the most noisy anyway—
of the people.

I should mention also Ben Hazard, of the Art
Department—black art professor—was splendid
in being where the trouble was, Lying to talk the
hottest of the heads down to a cooler position. I
think I mentioned Carl Backman was there, and
Dave Harvey, of the Sociology Department. There
must have been others that don’t now come to
mind, but there were several in the group. (Am I
preempting your questions?)

No, this is fine.

At one point, we were in the stands, and Dan
Teglia came to me—the only student with a mega¬
phone sort of arrangement, and who was in a sense
a student leader, but I’m sure a voice for modera¬
tion. He came to me and asked me if I would be
willing to speak over the microphone from the
platform if the protestors were given the right to
speak. They wanted—at least he wanted, and a
number of others did want—a moment of silence
and respect for those who had died at Kent State.
And I agreed that I would speak, and I would have.
I said I was willing to ask for a moment of si¬
lence in respect for all those who were victims of
unnecessary violence, at Kent State and else¬
where.

JAMES HULSE

215

He also wanted just a few remarks by way of
protest against the president’s incursion into Cam¬
bodia, and I would have been willing to try to do
that in a respectful way and then to ask for quiet,
as President Miller had done. It seemed to me
that the point that President Miller made was that
this was a function of the university, and if we
had any respect for freedom of expression, we
should respect it there as well as demand that the
rights of peace groups should be honored. We had
every bit as much of an obligation to honor these
peoples’ rights as they had to honor ours when
we or others had a peace rally.

So, I would have tried to say something like
that, and Dan Teglia and I agreed that this would
be a good effort to make for the puiposes of qui¬
eting the crowd. Dan Teglia went back down in
front to the platform. I was left with the impres¬
sion that permission had already been granted,
and that at some point this would happen.

Dan Teglia came back to me and said, “Edd
Miller says he wants to hear it from you—from
Jim Hulse.”

So I went down, and Edd Miller was appar¬
ently under the impression that I had asked for
permission to speak, which I had not. I was will¬
ing to do it. He said, “We cannot interrupt the
ceremony at this point, for you.”

I said, “Well, I don’t want to interrupt the
ceremony. I don’t want to do it unless it will serve
the puipose of quieting the group.” But it was
logical, of course, that he could not interrupt it at
that time. It didn’t seem appropriate then: part of
the ceremony had already gone on. So, I and oth¬
ers who were standing there with me said that we
would go back into the stands and try to keep the
group as quiet as possible. Most of them were
doing well, I think, although there were a few
times when they got too noisy—and as Governor
Laxalt himself said, in most cases the conduct
was not offensive.

Now, during a good paid of this, there were a
number of black students sitting out on the field,
not far from where the soldiers were—where the
ROTC cadets were assembled. I don’t know at
what point they went there. I think they must have
been marching around the field and just stayed

on the field when the rest of the crowd moved
into the stands, but I’m not certain of the sequence
of events—there were so many things happening
that I can’t recall.

At any rate, when we got back up into the
stands, after the conversation with President
Miller, there was more discontent, more noise.
People have subsequently told me that because
the peace group was denied the right to speak,
they decided to go on the field. I don’t know about
that. All I know is that I was talking to two or
three people, and at one point we talked about
trying to get them out of the stadium, go out way
out the back way, but before I knew what was
happening, large numbers of our group were spill¬
ing over onto the field and going out there to join
the black group.

And by the time you got a couple of hundred
out there, and the cadets are beginning to march,
there is obviously the possibility of new trouble.
I did not go onto the field immediately. I was sit¬
ting in the stands with only a half dozen people. I
can remember sitting next to Rick Chiarito of the
library, and Mrs. Marian Rendall, who’s a gradu¬
ate student of history. Three or four of us were
there—I can’t remember, but there were a few
people still in the stands, but by far the largest
number of the so-called protestors were on the
field.

I had thought that there may still be an occa¬
sion for me to speak over the loudspeaker and to
make a plea for order. After four or five minutes
out on the field, when there was obviously the
danger of some kind of trouble between the ROTC
cadets and the people who were milling about
out there, I could see some of my colleagues fry¬
ing to prevent confrontation. I walked out onto
the field to ask two or three people whether they
thought a plea over the microphone at that time—
to leave the stadium—would work. I remember
talking to Ben Hazard, and he said, “We could
never move them out of here now.” He didn’t
think there was any possibility. I was only on the
field a couple of minutes, long enough to talk to
two or three of my colleagues. I then walked back
toward the platform, wanting to remain there in
case President Miller should decide it would be

216

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

desirable for me to speak, and I stayed right near
the platform until the drill of the ROTC cadets
was finished, and they stalled to march out. Then,
of course, the protestors followed them out, and
I then rushed across the field to join the protest¬
ors once again.

As we went out of the stadium, there were
quite a number of policemen—I think they were
University Police—down near the entrance, the
south entrance. And it seemed to me there was
great danger there of somebody doing a very fool¬
ish thing. As a matter of fact, I was near the back
of the column, and some four motorcycles were
lined up together with policemen on them. I don’t
know whether they were university or city po¬
lice, but one could see them as the column was
moving. Some girl stepped into the middle of the
four of them. I saw this girl among the four po¬
licemen, and there was some kind of activity that
looked a little dangerous—one could get the im¬
pression that she was in incarceration there, and
I think th i ce or four students started to run for
those motorcycles, [laughter] It was a frighten¬

ing moment, and to me one of the most frighten¬
ing, because I thought we might have a confron¬
tation with the police right there. As it turned out,
this girl was just laughing and giggling, or some¬
thing, as we approached. It was clear that it was
all in fun; I don’t know what was happening, but
there, just for a dangerous moment, a few people
stai'tcd to converge on those motorcycles, from
what was obviously a mistaken assumption.

The only thing that we could do at that
point—the thing I tried to do, as in other cases—
was just to keep the crowd moving, keep going,
keep going. Well, it was small, little episodes like
that that seemed to be so dangerous that it seemed
to have the potential for mistake, but I think it
was possible to obviate because there were quite
a number of cool-headed students and a few fac¬
ulty members who were in the middle of things,
you see, when the tension existed.

Well, that’s a quick summary of the
Governor’s Day activity; of course, many other
activities occurred later in the day, but that’s the
episode that occurred in the stadium.

“Now, during a good part of this, there were a number of black students sitting out on the field, not far from where
the soldiers were—where the ROTC cadets were assembled. ”

JAMES HULSE

217

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration?

The most effective part of the demonstration?
Well, I don’t think the demonstration as a whole
was very effective. I don’t like that form of pro¬
test. It is not the form of protest that I would
choose, even though I believe in protest. I think
it’s a mistake to interrupt a ceremony of that kind
if what you’re hying to do is to protest against
the war. It was not effective from that point of
view. And many don’t share that view, but as a
protest against the war, that was not an effective
device.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the Governor’s Day observance—the ceremo¬
nies?

Well, it’s difficult for me to answer that. I
confess that I didn’t hear much of the ceremony.
I spent most of my time talking to people about
one thing—either talking to people who were
excited, or talking to students and others about
what we would do. I’m afraid in that sense I was
not terribly courteous. The people told me that
taps were played at one point; I don’t remember
having heard that. And I know that when they
were awarding the medals on the field, I was lis¬
tening more often to people in the stands beside
me than I was to what was going on in the field.

I don’t have any notion about the effective¬
ness. I suppose the most effective thing that hap¬
pened was that violence was avoided, and so that’s
a negative kind of effectiveness, I suppose.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various factions involved with the demon ¬
strators—the ROTC, and the university adminis¬
tration—when this situation developed?

Well, my basic reaction came to be, and is, I
think, to try to keep things cool. It seems to me it
was a wise judgment for the president and Procter
Hug to abide a token protest. If you cut off the
possibility of protest completely, you invite vio¬

lence. If you call down the authorities too quickly,
you invite violence, and this is exactly what the
Abbie Hoffman kind wants. It seems to me the
reaction has to be to allow token protest to exist,
to carry on the ceremony as much as possible, as
they did.

In retrospect, I think it might have been wise
if the administration had made it possible for some
kind representative of the peace movement to
speak—probably more effective as a speaker
would have been a student. That is, he could have
done a good deal more than a faculty member
perhaps, but it might have been wise to have al¬
lowed a representative of that movement to speak.
Or, it would have been very desirable if a mem¬
ber of the establishment itself—either the presi¬
dent, the governor, or the chairman of the board
of regents—had made a symbolic recognition of
the tragedy at Kent State and had acknowledged
that there were people who were not in support
of the Cambodian operation. If something like
that had happened, I think it would have cooled
90, 95 percent of those who were there in pro¬
test. That’s my own hunch.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day? The fire bombings?

Oh, I think they must have been the acts of
madmen. I don’t think there was any necessary
connection between the events of Governor’s Day
and those fire bombings. There may have been a
madman or a provocateur in the crowd; there may
have been someone who wanted violence. Con¬
ceivably, later in the week, there were people on
the campus for reasons other than the peace move¬
ment, and there are some anecdotes I could offer
on that.

But whoever threw the two firebombs was
trying to provoke trouble, trying to create blood¬
shed and difficulty, and trying to revolutionize
many of the students on the campus. These people
are madmen. And well, there’s nothing that I, or
many of us, can do about those people.

I was mainly concerned on the field at
Governor’s Day to prevent the kids who are ex-

218

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

cited and upset from being radicalized. That was
the obligation that I felt, and that was the danger
that we faced. If the police had moved in at the
wrong time, if the violence had occurred, many
of the people who were most excited, who are
basically good, young people, might well have
become the victims of the Abbie Hoffmans. And
that was the great danger. The fire bombers, who¬
ever they were, were either madmen or they
wanted that kind of thing to happen.

What category of participants in these various
affairs—the students, the faculty, or outsiders —
do you think was most important in fomenting
violence ?

Well, first of all. Governor’s Day was not
violent. We avoided violence on that day. The
only violence that I know about were the two fire
bombings, and I don’t know who did that. I don’t
believe it was any of our students or faculty, but
I don’t know. If I knew, [laughter] I would file
charges tomorrow—today! I don’t know. It was
some of the members of this community, of
course, who helped create the climate in which
the march on the stadium occurred, but again, that
was not a violent confrontation.

I think to the extent that the media represented
it as violence, that’s an oversimplification, be¬
cause no one was hurt, no one was arrested, and
the ceremony went on to its conclusion, even
though it was delayed.

Do you think outsiders were important?

I don’t know. In that episode I just don’t know.
Two days later there were outsiders on the cam¬
pus. If they were there on Tuesday, they could
have. I'm not aware of it.

What kinds of actions do you think were the most
important in cooling off the situation that followed
the fire bombing?

Well, there were two or three tense days right
after Governor’s Day, and by the end of the week,

there was a large number of faculty members,
members of the student body, and so on, who were
attending meetings and were talking to one an¬
other for the puipose of keeping it cool. I think
there came to be a kind of community commit¬
ment to the idea of keeping it cool.

So, a lot of meetings were organized—you
see, they didn’t just happen. When a meeting was
going to happen, faculty members would appear,
and students would appear, and some ground rales
emerged which kept people talking to one another.
And the fact that people could talk in situations
that were controlled—even though sometimes
there was great hostility—allowed steam to be
released, somewhat slowly, somewhat mildly. We
avoided, I think, direct confrontation, more
bloody situations. We avoided the conditions in
which the radicals could operate most effectively
by having a large number of discussions. And a
lot of petition-passing went on; a lot of arguing
went on. All of that, given the climate we had,
was very healthy.

When there was some talk of a strike, a na¬
tionwide student strike on Friday, a few students
got at the head of that movement and organized
the strike. That was a very good move. The fact
that the administration said, “Friday each person
should follow his own conscience; there should
be no penalty invoked against those who do
strike”—that was a very good move. It helped
create the kind of climate, I think, in which token
protests could be had: no punitive action was to
be the result. That was all very healthy. In a cli¬
mate like that, one has to find a way to diffuse
the tension in a peaceful way, and that was done
because many faculty members and many stu¬
dents by the end of the week were committed to
that kind of conduct.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s so-called image with outsiders?

Oh, I gather—and this is all second hand—
that the university’s image was hurt with the com¬
munity and with the state at large, partly because
some of the people who were there in the stands

JAMES HULSE

219

were very angry, and the press of course was ba¬
sically not very pleased. While one could under¬
stand that by the demonstration, I think in the
wake of all the other trouble on campuses across
the country, many Nevadans came to the conclu¬
sion that trouble is reaching here, and this is a
very bad thing—we better do something about it
right away.

So the university’s image was certainly hurt.
I think some unwise things were said in many
places. Some of the least wise things were said
by the people who made immediate reactions to
the situation. I talked to many people during the
week, and I talked to revolutionaries (or people
who call themselves revolutionaries, but they re¬
ally are not deserving of that epithet). In all of
the speeches that I heard, and in all the arguments
that I had, only on one occasion did I hear some¬
one clearly incite to violence, and that was a state
senator. He was the only one, in my opinion, who
clearly and categorically incited to violence. Oth¬
ers did unwise things, but I think that’s the only
act that was truly in that category.

What function can the university have in focus¬
ing public opinion?

A university’s a very big, multi-phase thing.
Each unit of the university has to do its own thing,
I suppose—as long as it does its own thing in a
peaceful way that doesn’t disrupt somebody else’s
activity. The university certainly is a place to raise
the provocative questions, and the university has
to make a place for this kind of peaceful protest
to exist. There are many segments of the univer¬
sity that don’t want to have that kind of a role,
and those segments should not be disturbed.

We shouldn’t force the College of Agricul¬
ture or College of Engineering or Department of
Journalism or anyone else to perform a role in
this situation, and yet there should be a place in
which a person of conscience can carry out the
kind of investigation and can make the kind of
judgments that he feels are most appropriate. In
other words, I see the university as being an in¬
stitution of every color and every faith. It has no

one rule, except to be open to everybody’s inter¬
ests and conviction—with the exception that you
cannot tolerate violence in any segment of it, or
you jeopardize the whole structure.

Do you think issues of academic freedom are in¬
volved in participating in a demonstration?

Not unless it’s unreasonably restricted. We
should assume we have the freedom to carry on
token demonstrations, token protests. The point
at which it begins to disrupt some other univer¬
sity function is the point at which somebody’s
freedom is being violated.

It’s true that those of us who marched on the
field came very near to violating the freedoms of
the people who were participating in the ROTC
ceremony, and many of us were there to tty to
prevent that from happening. The point is, the
ceremony did go on, the ceremony was con¬
cluded, and the protest was had, too. There were
some unfortunate things involved; we were very
lucky that nobody’s freedom was jeopardized
because of that. If the outside reaction to that
episode, and to the things that followed, is too
great, then it jeopardizes the academic freedom
of all of us. So academic freedom is certainly a
delicate thing that must be guided in every case.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally? Or should they be trying to influence gov¬
ernmental policies?

Well, each of us as a citizen has a right to tty
to influence the government, and there are plenty
of ways to try to do it. Basically, I think most of
us are committed to the idea that we should do it
through the system. If you don’t like a candidate,
get rid of him in the next election. If you dis¬
agree with a court judgment, tty to achieve either
the legislative changes or the constitutional
changes through the system that will do what you
want.

Those students, or those people who argue
that the whole system is collapsing—and there¬
fore, we should disrupt the whole thing and start

220

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

from scratch—are, in effect, saying what the an¬
archists have been saying for a hundred years.
Most of us can’t subscribe to that. I shall not sac¬
rifice any rights that already exist because some¬
body feels other rights are being jeopardized.

I think the way to change the system is by
getting into a political party, or running for of¬
fice, or electing candidates who meet the point
of view that you represent. Now there are many
of the young people, and some of the bright ones,
who are not quite convinced that it works that
way anymore. These are the people that I’m most
worried about. These are the people who might
well be radicalized, and whom we might lose to
the system if we make a mistake.

One of my colleagues from Stanford was
Anatole Mazour, who was one of my professors
there and who taught on this campus many years
ago, and more recently in the substitute basis. He
said something like this that was very impres¬
sive, “At Stanford last year there were about fifty
radicals. This year there are some eight hundred
people who are truly radicals in the most militant
sense of the word.” In the course of a year, quite
a number of bright young people who were dis¬
turbed became radicalized; that is, they joined
the revolution in a militant way, and they’re now
ready to burn and bomb. I think that must be
what’s happening in Santa Barbara—I don’t
know.

This is exactly what Abbie Hoffman says
must happen to make the revolution: that the
handful of radicals must create climates in which
larger numbers can be radicalized. That was ex¬
actly the danger through which we passed, I think,
during the week following Governor’s Day. And
there were some people. I’m convinced, on the
campus at least a couple of days later, who were
frying to achieve that objective.

On Thursday of that week, two days after
Governor’s Day, there was a call that came out
from the dean’s office. I didn’t get it directly, but
I was told that the dean’s office asked that a num¬
ber of people, students and faculty, go over to the
Jot Travis Union, where a meeting was getting
underway. When some of us got there, I talked to

several of my colleagues who didn’t know why—
some people thought it was a faculty meeting.

As a few of us went into the lounge there,
there were five people sitting at a head table—a
sort of a head table—and there were more than a
hundred students in the room at that time, and
already quite a severe argument was going on.
People were shouting back and forth. These five
at the head table were quite clearly from off our
campus. They had come in from somewhere
else—I don’t know where—but our students spot¬
ted them as being outsiders.

I became convinced rather quickly that they
were indeed from off-campus, and they were play¬
ing Abbie Hoffman’s game. So John Dodson (of
the Campus Christian Center) and I talked
quickly, and we decided that we had better run
the meeting. There didn’t seem to be any leader¬
ship. We sat there for ten minutes with nothing
more than shouting going on. So, a microphone
was brought in. John Dodson began to chair the
meeting, and I filled in for a short time. For some
two to three hours, we in effect presided over that
meeting, seeing to it that everybody had a
chance—everybody who wanted to speak—had
a chance to speak, that the five at the head table
did not dominate things. And by and large, it was
my tactic to keep other people speaking, people
whom we know in the university community, stu¬
dents of our own. Once in a while we would rec¬
ognize people at this head table, because we were
standing higher than they were, behind them.
Well, a lot of steam was released in that case.

There were some who wanted to throw those
five out, bodily. There were some people who
were ready to call the police and expel those five
from the campus. In my opinion, that would have
been exactly what they wanted. If the police had
come in, or if some effort had been made to throw
them out, there would have been a fight. There
would have been blood shed, possibly. We would
have run the risk of radicalizing another fifty stu¬
dents or whatever—it depends on how bad it
would have gotten. These were the dangers we
were trying to obviate.

JAMES HULSE

221

I did see a couple of those people around on
the campus later, and they had on flashy clothes
saying “Strike,” and they had banners, and they
were talking about setting up medical aid centers
to help the wounded on the campus. When they
were planning the strike for Friday, there was a
strike headquarters over across the street, I guess
in the Flobbit Flole. I stopped in there for one
moment, although I did not want to strike; I went
over there briefly to see what was happening.
Some of the students were planning the strike,
and I heard one of these fellows. One of these
young men was there, saying, “Let’s set up medi¬
cal aid centers, so that if anybody is hurt tomor¬
row, he’ll have help right away.” This is what the
radicals did, you see, to create the climate in
which you come to expect violence. Very wisely,
Dan Teglia and, I think, Dave Flarvey was there
at that time, saying, “Cool it. We’re going to have
a strike, but not a violent one.” There are many
devices that these people could use if they wanted,
you see, to create the climate for violence. If you
create the expectation of it, you create the real¬
ity. (I answered your question in a rather long-
winded way.)

Where’s the peace movement going now, here?

Oh, I really don’t know. The peace movement
isn’t really a movement, I think. At one point
during the week, I thought what we should do to
handle some of this energy was to set up the
Northern Nevada Peace Center, the old peace
movement like the one we had two years ago that
organized support for Senator McCarthy and
Senator Kennedy. That was sort of ineffective,
but it seemed to me that it would be far better to
try to use this energy and this frustration in po¬
litical action than in some of the damaging ways
that seemed to be threatening us then.

I don’t know. The students have scattered for
the summer. Some of them, I gather, are going to
work for their favorite political candidates. I’ve
talked to a couple of students who are going to
try to get involved, who are going to try to go to
Saigon, to Vietnam, to perform humanitarian ser¬

vices for Vietnamese people. I don’t know where
the movement is going. I hope it goes into politi¬
cal action, in favor of peace candidates. And this
is happening in some parts of the country. But as
for our young people, I couldn’t generalize. I think
most of them are going to try to do something
constructive. I’m an optimist about that.

What other comments would you like to make
about the whole situation?

I don’t think I have any right now. I have a
lot of ideas, but I just....

This comes to mind: we did become aware, I
think, that the university system, the whole struc¬
ture of the university, and the kind of freedoms
that make it worthwhile, are very delicate things.
They could very easily be destroyed, and not only
by the radicals and the Abbie Hoffmans who
could burn our buildings. They could be de¬
stroyed, of course, by the overreaction of public
opinion to that sort of point of view.

We heard some rather unwise things said
about punishing the entire university for the con¬
duct of a few students, or the conduct of a few
faculty members—or even for the conduct of the
300 of us, if that’s how many there were walking
around the field. To punish the whole university
or to damage it, or to impose restrictions on the
university community because of that episode,
would be a serious mistake. These revolutionary
movements never get crushed, never get de¬
stroyed by severe repression. If the lessons of
history teach us anything, it’s that you don’t quell
a revolution by becoming tougher, and that’s all.
They certainly didn’t quiet the American colo¬
nies by the restrictive legislation of the Townsend
Acts and the Stamp Act and that sort of thing.
And the Russian government didn’t quiet its revo¬
lutionaries by the repressive enactments of the
1890s.

The board of regents will not end the revolu¬
tion, or end the embarrassing statements in the
Sagebrush by imposing some sort of restrictions
on university publications. There’s some consid¬
eration of that, I gather, going on right now. If the

222

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

board of regents passes restrictions that in some
way restrain the rights of those who publish on
the campus, they will only create an underground
press that will be far more dangerous, far harder
to control than what they’re dealing with now.

These things can be managed, I think, by san¬
ity—by the kind of open debate that universities
are established for. If we get a chance to answer
the filthy speech people, if we get a chance to
answer the Abbie Hoffmans, I think we can do it.
If we tty to repress them, we’re inviting more
and more trouble. If they violate law, and if they
create violence, we punish the people who are
responsible for the violence. You cannot guaran¬
tee the absence of violence in advance by the kind
of restrictions that we’ve been hearing so much
about.

Laurance M. Hyde Jr.

May 29, 1970

So, just to start this tape, why don’t you give your
name, your position at the university, and your
hometown, if you wish.

Laurance Hyde, National College of State
Trial Judges. And my hometown is Princeton,
Missouri, a town of 1,000 people on the Iowa
border of Missouri.

Yes, and you ’ve lived here for several years.

Lived here for five years.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

I was a participant. I spoke at the rally, or
rather the memorial service, that was given on
Friday during the week, and I assume that’s the
reason. Also, I’ve been asked about some of the
legal aspects of the oral history project in rela¬
tion to this particular incident.

OK, now what was your own reaction to Presi¬
dent Nixon’s decision to move troops into Cam¬
bodia ?

I was in Washington when he made the an¬
nouncement, when he made his speech. I watched
it on television, and I thought his explanation
made a great deal of sense to me. And I thought
that it was a step toward narrowing, and not wid¬
ening, the war, and I was satisfied with the rea¬
sons he gave for making the move.

Well then, in what way do you think this Cambo¬
dia decision was related to what happened next
on this campus?

Clearly it was a move geographically widen¬
ing the war and putting troops in a place where
they had not previously been. I think that the re¬
action to that was that we’re getting deeper into
Indochina, and that therefore, we’re taking a step
that’s a direct violation of Nixon’s campaign
promises and everything he said since the elec¬
tion. The reaction was violent on the Kent cam¬
pus and other campuses throughout the country.

I was going to ask you about your reaction to
what happened on other campuses. What was
your reaction to events in other parts of the coun¬
try related to this Cambodia decision? I mean,
do you think there’s any connection between what
happened here or what happened in Kent State?

224

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Laurance Hyde, 1970s.

Was it the University of Louisiana where some
youngsters . . . ?

Jackson? Wasn’t it Jackson, Mississippi? A
black campus where ....

Yes, yes.

Well, yes, I think they’re all directly related.
I think that with my understanding from the news¬
papers and what I’ve heard, on the Kent campus
it was a confrontation arising directly out of op¬
position to Nixon’s move into Cambodia. It also
was an example of untrained National guardsmen
being put in a position that they were not pre¬
pared for and doing exactly the thing that would
not have occurred with a well-trained force in the
problem of a civil disturbance.

Because I think it’s clear that the cardinal rule
is that you lead force in gradual steps. And, as I
understand it, somewhere along the line you give

the order to fix bayonets still in scabbards, and
then you give the order to remove the scabbards.
Then, finally, after some other intermediate steps,
you give the order to place one round of ammu¬
nition in the rifles, and that may only be in one
line of rifles. If that kind of a practice had been
followed, there would not have been loaded rifles
in the hands of those untrained National guards¬
men at that stage.

Oh, and the other step, as I understand it, is
the order to fire if there were snipers—it would
be given not as a general volley from a mass of
troops, but it would have been given to a specific
marksman to fire at a specific target and not to
fire a volley into the crowd.

The reason 1 asked your reaction to these things
in relation to the Cambodia news was that I just
wondered if you thought there was anything else
causing the unrest that erupted, other than the
Cambodian war It might be; it might not be. I
didn’t know how you felt about this.

Yes, I do think that the Cambodian thing was
a spark that triggered it, but I think there are cer¬
tainly other things that are involved. I think one
thing that’s involved is the fact that it’s spring,
[laughter] And I think this is traditionally the time
we’ve had all kinds of... .

A burst of energy maybe? [laughter]

Bursts of energy [laughter] and campus high
jinks of various kinds—in the days when high
jinks meant seeing how many people you could
put in a telephone booth, or now, when it means
a political confrontation.

Yes.

I think that’s part of it. I think there comes a
time when a campus, as a status symbol, has to
have a riot. And if you don’t have one, there must
be something wrong with your campus. I think
that, also, there are quite legitimate complaints
in this student body about the very slow way in

LAURANCE M. HYDE JR.

225

which authority reacts to legitimate demands that
the students make. I think all those things are in¬
volved. And of course, now we’ve gone on to see
people making political capital of it and demand¬
ing repressive laws. So, in Oregon they turned
down the nineteen-year-old vote. I think we’re
not going to learn any lessons from what’s hap¬
pened this spring throughout the country. We’re
going to continue to tty to contain it by repres¬
sion, and that’s going to cause more bloodshed,
probably.

Well, now regarding the Governor’s Day activi¬
ties on this campus, the University of Nevada,
Reno. What did you think about the arrangements
for the observances that went on ? And what was
your reaction to the demonstrations, or did you
feel it was necessary to participate in any of this?

I would like to have gone. I had intended to
go as a participant in the Governor’s Day cel¬
ebration itself not the demonstration against it.

I think it might have been foreseeable after
Kent and the Cambodian incident that a military-
oriented ceremony might have caused trouble.
And by hindsight, maybe it should have been
canceled and avoided the possibility of that kind
of confrontation. But even by hindsight. I’m not
sure that it should have.

You didn’t actually see what happened?

I didn’t go. I had other commitments, so I
didn’t see it. The people in our office who had
attended came back describing it. And one girl
who’s a loyal alum of the university was in tears
at having seen what had happened on the campus
that she loves and so forth. I have very close
friends who were participating on both sides of
the scene and have gotten their views of it. [laugh¬
ter]

My reaction, basically, is that in the name of
peace, violence makes very little sense, and in
the name of liberty, interfering with other people’s
right to hold some kind of a ceremony makes very
little sense. I think that the whole thing is very
illiberal to interfere with other people’s rights to

make yourself heard, if you are in a society where
you have a right to be heard, and you’re given an
opportunity to express your viewpoint.

If you’re in a society—which we are not—
where you must do something overt in order to
be heard, well, then I think it’s a different thing. I
also am well aware that some great strides have
been made by these tactics in this country. I think
that the sit-ins in the South, the freedom march
on Washington, and some of these other things—
I really do approve of those things. I think they
accomplished something; they were needed and
they’ve stirred people to examine their views and
to change their views. So, they were an impor¬
tant contribution to liberal progress and to well-
deserved freedoms. But that doesn’t, to me, jus¬
tify the use in all situations, and that seems to me
to be the position that is now being taken: they
were an effective tool in certain circumstances;
therefore, we will use them in all circumstances.

I think the question really isn’t whether it’s
illiberal or not; it’s whether it’s effective or not.
And I object now on the grounds that I don’t be¬
lieve that these tactics are effective. Witness Gov¬
ernor Reagan’s election: I think he was largely
elected by the University of California distur¬
bances. And we witnessed the strong vote in Or¬
egon against the nineteen-year-old vote.

Reactions, yes. OK. Want to go ahead?

Well, the other thing that I see occurring on
this campus and other places among the youth
(and not just the youth, but I’m reacting to a spe¬
cific circumstance, and I’m mentioning youth for
that reason) is that everybody gets so convinced
of the rightness of his own cause that he finds it
difficult to conceive that he might be mistaken.
And as a lawyer and a judge, this is something
that I’ve been commenting on for a number of
years. It’s a very rare thing, really, to find a per¬
son who is capable of saying, “Well, by golly,
maybe I was wrong about that,” and to back off
from a position that he has taken.

So it shouldn’t surprise anybody that this is
now a problem because it always has been a prob¬
lem. It’s just that now it’s a problem that people

226

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

are using these positions that they’ve gotten them¬
selves entrenched in, in a different way, because
now the current confrontation kind of politics
calls for a different kind of use of your views.
We used to simply either argue about it or walk
away from the other person who was arguing with
us; but that isn’t what we’re doing now. So we’re
seeing the result of this thing that’s always ex¬
isted of the inability of people to admit or even
entertain the notion that they might be mistaken
about something that they’ve taken a position on.

I think this is what we saw when we had the
sessions over in the Travis lounge where people
took turns as moderator and everybody got up
and talked. There was a lot of talking, but I don’t
really think there was an awful lot of listening.
And I wonder if we couldn’t handle this kind of
thing better ....

We also tried a small group tactic where
groups were placed in the center of the circle,
and then they could talk. I didn’t attend that one.
Only the people in the center could talk, and you
took your turn in the center. I think that was a
very effective thing, but I’d like to see us try some¬
thing else. That is, I wonder what would happen
if we divided people up in those same kinds of
groups, and then, at random, picked one from each
of the four or five groups of the right-wing and
the center and the left-wing and the administra¬
tion—whatever the groups are. And we picked,
say, three people from each of those groups, so
you ended up with a group of somewhere between
twelve and fifteen. And you had however many
of those small groups was necessary to take care
of all the people who wanted to participate—
that’s the 200 people on the campus, or however
many it is.

You’d end up with that many of these small
groups, and they would then first go into a large
assembly, perhaps, and hear some input informa¬
tion, some speeches, for a short time—twenty
minutes. Then they would divide into the small
groups, and they would try to handle that infor¬
mation. There would be a chairman, but only as
a moderator. Then, you would have to react in
what you said to what the others around were

saying, and then maybe you could get people to
tty to find the point of the areas in which they
agree first, and narrow the areas of disagreement.

There still would be areas of disagreement,
but I don’t think they’re as great as they seem
when the thing to do is to make as radical a state¬
ment as you can make, as far-out a statement as
you can make. I think we are a small campus,
and maybe there is a way to really communicate
on this campus. And that’s one thought of the
way that it might be tried.

Well, that’s a way, a beginning, of trying to com¬
municate, so they can’t complain that nobody lis¬
tens. OK, right? Then do you want to work on
this some more, or would you rather go on to
what happened next after this Cambodia thing?

No, no. I think the efforts that were made were
excellent, and it was a real experience to observe
it. I think they made progress, but my fear is that
there’s a limit to what you can do in that big group.
I thought we’d reached it. I think maybe we need
another mechanism, and a small group might be
it.

OK. Well, then this is taking just the opposite tack.
What was your reaction to the violence that
erupted right after Governor’s Day? No talking,
no arguing, but suddenly bombing at the ROTC
building and then the bombing of the Hobbit Hole.
What was your reaction to all that?

Unjustified by any stretch of the imagination,
and so out of place. I forgot who said it, but I
think our fearless vice president said, “The sign
of rifles on a college campus is a contradiction,”
or something like this. And I don’t agree with
very much that the vice president says, but that’s
true.

[laughter] That struck a note, right?

And that’s what we were seeing here. There
weren’t rifles, but we were seeing Molotov cock¬
tails on a campus where, by no stretch of the

LAURANCE M. HYDE JR.

221

imagination, was that kind of thing justified. And,
of course, we saw absolute unanimity of the
people—at least who were heard from—oppos¬
ing that thing that had no support on this campus,
although it has had support on other campuses.

Yes. Well, that leads to the next question then.
What category of participant — student, faculty,
or outsider—was most effective in fomenting this
disorder, this disruption, or the violence? Do you
think there is an outside influence here, or is this
just fear talk?

Well, I think there’s outside influence, but
I'm not sure that that’s necessarily bad.

By outside I meant non-student or out-of-state
person.

Yes, I think there was outside influence. I
think that clearly we had some visitors who were
here hoping to cause trouble; and again, I don’t
think that’s necessarily so bad. They were heard,
and people listened to them. And by “causing
trouble” I don V mean to imply that I think they
were here to cause violence. They were here to
cause trouble, which I include among the good
things that you have on campuses. It is that kind
of trouble, which is an examining of what’s go¬
ing on. I can’t really see—from what I saw— that
the non-students who were on the campus were
advocating anything that was any further out than
some of the things that our own students were
advocating.

Yes. Well, once an idea has been tossed in the
ring, you know .... (It’s just part of the ques¬
tion.) [laughter]

Unless someone had some reason to think that
they were advocates of violence, I think we ought
to welcome them on campus, and we ought to
listen to what they say. And then we ought to
decide what we think about what they say.

Yes, all right. Well, you ’ve spoken to this some¬
what, but I’ll ask it again, just in case you have

something more to say: what actions do you feel
were most effective in preventing more violence,
or in cooling off the situation that developed af¬
ter the bombings?

Well, I think the sessions at Travis lounge
where people got a chance to talk were good. I
think the idea of having a memorial service in
the Manzanita Bowl was a good thing. Putting
the flag at half-mast was responding to what stu¬
dents were asking and was a perfectly reason¬
able request, and the administration should have
responded to it, even though it wasn’t a request
of a unanimous group. I think to have a planned
memorial was a fine idea, and I think it was ef¬
fective and a wise thing to do.

There were a couple of things about it that
did bother me. I participated in it. I made it to
one of the three or four talks that were made there.
And those of us who were asked to make those
talks were told that they would be non-political,
and I think I was the only one who followed that
instruction. The result was that to me—and I think
to other observers—it sounded as though the pur¬
pose of the memorial was against Cambodia, and
that was not the intention of it, although that was
the view of some of the people that participated.

It left the people who went there, the so-called
cowboys or the people who supported the
president’s move into Cambodia, feeling that they
had not had a voice, and that they should have
had a voice—that since one view was voiced, the
other view should have been, too. And I agree
with that; I think it should have been kept non¬
political, or there should have been two voices.

I think, also, one minor incident that occurred
there was when we heard a police radio. During
the ceremony—and it was kind of a solemn, quiet
occasion—the city police cruised back and forth
quite in evidence, and I think that was a mistake.
The city police also parked one of their vehicles—
and I think it was a motorcycle—behind the trees
on Virginia just to the west of the bowl, and the
officer left the motorcycle and turned his radio
up so that he could hear calls while he was some
distance away, which is standard police practice.
But it was a disruptive and quite obnoxious po-

228

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

lice-type noise coming in the middle of the cer¬
emony, which was associated with National
Guard type of noises, and it was simply a mis¬
take. And it, again, caused the police to be a fo¬
cal point of 200 students who could again say,
“Well, there are the damn, dumb cops again.”

It was just an unfortunate incident.

Well, you’ve talked about this somewhat, too, but
I’ll ask it again. How do you think events on cam¬
pus affect the university’s image with outsiders?

Well, I think it does very much affect the
university’s image, and I think it does very un¬
fairly affect the image. Here are certainly two
groups of people, two widely divergent view¬
points on the campus. And the university is not a
hotbed of radicalism (although, of course, there
are some ultra-radicals, as there are some ultra¬
conservatives on the campus).

I think we clearly are not at all communicat¬
ing with the community at large, and I don’t know
what can be done about it. Some of the sugges¬
tions that were made in the Travis lounge ses¬
sions were hopelessly inadequate. People were
suggesting that students can use the labels, a team
of one long-hair and one cowboy, and send out a
group of teams who should go j ust knock on doors
and stop businessmen on the street and talk—
rap—about how we feel. Well, I think we need to
find ways to communicate, and I don’t think that’s
it.

But I wish that the people at large could see
how intent and serious these kids are. I think
they’re a great bunch, and it’s been a privilege to
me to have had a chance to work with them. I
think they’re just fabulous. My generation ought
to be taking its collective hat off to them. I think
they’re great kids. Even if I violently disagree
with some of the things they come up with and
some of the things they do, I think they’re on the
right track, and I’m all for them.

I think it’s just, again, labeling people that
the community is doing. They’re labeling people
who are connected with the university in an un¬
fair way. I don’t how we could even start to make
a dent in it. I’ve seen the same thing with many

other kinds of issues, where if you can talk with
the man on the street, if you can get him to listen
to you about something, if you’ve got something
that makes some sense, you can turn him around
on it. But you can’t really get enough people to
seriously listen. And that’s the problem with what
to do about the fact that we have students whose
ideas are different from the average voter’s. So I
don’t know. I think it’s a serious problem, and I
don’t know what the answer is.

How can a student or faculty, whichever you want
to speak of, be effective politically? Should they
attempt to influence political or government
policy?

I think they certainly should. That’s what
democracy is all about, and I think basically both
faculty and students certainly should. The ques¬
tion is, how?

Well, I could have asked you that, [laughter] How
can they be effective politically?

Well, I think they can be very effective po¬
litically by rioting. I think they can win all the
votes for the opposition that they need.

Win votes for the opposition by a riot?

Yes, I think they can be very negatively ef¬
fective by throwing a Molotov cocktail. I think
that’s a very, very fine way to be negatively ef¬
fective.

Now, how can they be effective then? [laughter]

If the voters had a chance in some way to
hear some of these youngsters that I worked
with—either through television or through other
kinds of public gatherings—I think they’d be just
as impressed with them as I am. They’re respon¬
sible and reasonable and, yet, are making demands
for change.

The ones who believe that the only way we
can change society is to tear it down and start
over, who believe that this society is so bad that

LAURANCE M. HYDE JR.

229

it’s got to be destroyed, and who don’t even sug¬
gest one substitute for it, I think to send those
people out is totally ineffective. But, to send out
some of the ones who are rational, I think, can be
very effective.

Yes, and do you work with, or are you aware of
the peace movement in this area? You must be
talking to young people. Can you see it headed
anywhere particularly? An organized peace
movement or an unorganized one? [laughter] I
don’t know how to put it.

I guess I would have to simply include that
in the business about restructuring society. I don’t
know what the peace movement’s goal is. Other
than the ultimate goal, I don’t think there’s any
unanimity in the peace movement as to how you
actually achieve the goal.

The peace movement’s goal two years ago
was to elect Eugene McCarthy. And I would sug¬
gest that it’s at least possible that had we elected
Eugene McCarthy, he might still be trying to get
out of Vietnam, and he might not have found it
all that easy. Maybe that’s not true, but I don’t
think it’s enough to say, “Let’s have peace.” I think
you have to say how you’re going to accomplish
it.

So, I would say that if their goal is to get out
of Vietnam, then maybe the most effective way
they could achieve that goal would be to support
the people they hate the most—the ones who have
expanded the war into Cambodia. I don’t know. I
don’t think their policy is very clear-cut. But I
don’t think it’s clear enough to me, at least, for
me to have any strong sense of whether it’s likely
to be successful. If they simply scream, “Peace
now,” I don’t think that’s going to accomplish
very much.

On the other hand, in a way, I think maybe it
has accomplished something, as did the Alabama
sit-ins. I don’t think the president was listening.
Maybe he is now listening. It seems likely to me
that the President of the United States has been
made aware of the depth of feeling that exists.
Impossible as it seems to me, he apparently was
not aware of it until that week.

Wow, well, this is the end of the tape. Do you have
any other comments you 7/ like to make?

No.

David Keller

May 28, 1970

I'm David Keller. I’m from Sparks, Nevada.
My major is civil engineering, and I'm a senior.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

I don’t know. Tell you the truth, I received a
letter in the mail, and I wondered at the time. I
don’t know, [laughter]

Well, what was your reaction to President Nixon’s
decision to move troops into Cambodia ?

My personal reaction was I felt that it was a
good move. I think that it should have been done
earlier, actually. The idea of playing war where
you draw a circle and say, “OK, don’t come into
our circle,” kind of annoys me. They stand on
the outside and throw rocks, and we don’t do any¬
thing about it. I think we should go out and stop
it, really. So, I think moving into Cambodia, as
far as to destroy enemy base camps and hideaways
where they’ve just been in seclusion, was a per¬
fectly logical, valid move—something that prob¬
ably should have been done earlier.

As far as staying in Cambodia, we now have
the government asking that American troops stay
in there. I don’t think that this is right; I think
that we should come out. But, as far as protect¬
ing our own men and materiel in Vietnam, I think
it’s a logical movement.

Very good. Can you draw any connection now of
why you might have been chosen, now that you
know more about the nature of the interview?

I'm a member of the ROTC brigade; that
might have been why.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on the UNR
campus?

That’s a difficult question. I'm not sure. I
think that probably what occurred would have
occurred, but not with as great a support had the
troops not moved into Cambodia—not all that
occurred. The demonstration at Governor’s Day,
I feel, probably would have gone off with less
support. The fire bombings subsequent to that, I
don’t think, would have occurred without the
moving into Cambodia.

232

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Can you draw any direct connection between the
two? Do you feel that the demonstrations were a
direct result of that?

Well, I think the demonstration against the
ROTC brigade, as I said, would have occurred
anyway, but with less support. The fact that Presi¬
dent Nixon moved into Cambodia and stirred up
people—well, people say, “It's a minority.” Well,
it doesn’t really matter. Because it’s such a large
number of people that are angered against the
movement, whether they’re a minority or major¬
ity doesn’t matter.

So, when these people became involved in
the Governor’s Day action, I think that it subse¬
quently had to lead to the violence that occurred,
because they had more people—many non-stu¬
dents—who were involved in it. I knew quite a
few personally who were not students who came
out and demonstrated, who would not have dem¬
onstrated had it not been for Cambodia—because
they could care less about ROTC on the univer¬
sity campus, truthfully.

You feel, then, that there were outsiders on the
campus.

Yes, there were. I know some of them per¬
sonally.

What kind of people were these outsiders? Can
you generalize about them? You may be reluc¬
tant to mention names, but what about these
people ? Do you know that much about them ?

I really don’t think that you can generalize
them and categorize them, really. By looking at
two individuals that I know, they are two com¬
plete individuals—one is completely different,
really. One of them had just returned about six
months ago from the service. He had been for
two years in the army as a draftee. When he came
back he began to associate with the long-hair type
picture, using drugs and things. And he decided,
“Well, I’ve been to war. I know what it’s about. I
don’t like it. I think it’s wrong.”

Now, the other individual that I know was
not associated at all—I mean, he’d never been in
the service. He was a missionary for a church
organization. He was just a returned missionary;
he’d been back for about a year, and he just came
out. I mean, he wasn’t really associated with the
long-hair group. In fact, he was, at one time, work¬
ing with the university police department. I don’t
know if he still is or not.

Oh, I see. What about the events in the other parts
of the country? Can you discuss this a little —
how these might have been related to the Cam¬
bodia decision ?

I don’t know. I think the Cambodian deci¬
sion definitely did set off a wave of reaction that
demonstrated across the campuses. And you can
take it from the campus into the streets of New
York with the construction workers, too.

I mean, going in the opposite direction, be¬
cause here are, I guess, people that.... A con¬
struction worker, he lives off the nation, and his
buildings are the things that the students are tear¬
ing down, and his ideal is of the American prin¬
ciple, “Here I am uneducated, essentially, but I
can make good money.” And he sees these people,
and he says, “Well, you know, you students are
destroying our country.” So they counter-reacted
against the students—and the students, being in
the prime age group, are the group that is respon¬
sible for the fighting in these countries and the
disenchantment that relates to it.

For ten years the American people have been
fighting a war, and President Nixon says, “Well,
we can’t pull out because we haven’t won it.”
Well, if you can’t win in ten years, when are you
going to win? Military victory, I think, is ridicu¬
lous. We’ve already been defeated, so the fact
that he prolongs this defeat and increases the num¬
ber of people killed I think directly touched off
the violence that was spread across there.

Now, the killings at Kent State—I think that
this is something that had to occur sooner or later.
It probably will occur again in the future. Because
looking at it from the standpoint of the students,

DAVID KELLER

233

even if I were not demonstrating it (my feelings
were not grossly against the war), I know I would
probably be out in the crowd just watching, if
nothing else, because it’s something that is of
interest.

The national policy is being formed, truth¬
fully, and you like to see what’s going on. I at¬
tended the memorial services that were held here
on campus for it. Not because I’m against the war
per se; I’m against the way we are handling the
war. But I felt that it was important in national
interest. What was occurring, I felt, was impor¬
tant that I should be there. And I did feel sorrow
for the fact that people had to be killed over this
kind of thing. So, I think that the killings were
something that would occur because of the Na¬
tional guardsmen.

Looking at it from the other point of view,
you have people throwing rocks and bricks at you,
and you have a group of students moving toward
you. The first thing you’re going to think about
is, “Well, number one, me. I’m in danger.” It’s
just logical to return fire, I mean, even if they are
not shooting at you. If I were in a line of guards¬
men, and I heard a shot—regardless of where that
shot came from—I’d figure it was directed at me
and start shooting back.

OK, now let’s talk a minute about the Governor’s
Day activities here. What did you think of the
arrangements that were made for the obser¬
vances? Is there anything that perhaps should
have been changed?

OK. Looking specifically at the Governor’s
Day, it came at a bad time with the Kent State
killings, though—just previously there was the
move into Cambodia. However, it was a univer¬
sity function which had been scheduled for a great
length of time. And so, going ahead and carrying
on with the Governor’s Day activities, I think,
was appropriate. Allowing the students for peace
to march, I think, was very appropriate.

I think that where it got out-of-hand is when
the students, after they marched, continued to
disrupt the ceremony. I think they have to have a

respect for the rights of others. I mean, their rights
were respected; their right to dissent was re¬
spected. They were allowed to march around the
field. And I think that if they would have done
that and then sat in the stands, that it would have
been a fantastic demonstration that would have
added greatly to their cause, because it would
have showed they were mature and thinking in¬
dividuals, and they had a cause, and they felt
strongly about it. However, when they continued
to disrupt the ceremonies after the marching, I
think this kind of related to an immaturity on their
part. It was more of a disgrace to them, actually,
than a build for their cause.

Now, during the Governor’s Day activities
itself, I think that the Military Department actu¬
ally went wrong a little bit, too, when the Sierra
Guardsmen marched with fixed bayonets doing
their memorized drills. It was a drill without any
cadence, and they had to go a certain number of
steps and then perform the movement. Now, with
the fixed bayonets, if someone in the lead part of
the platoon were not to take the proper number
of steps, he was bound to get chopped in the back
with a bayonet. So, they had a kind of a responsi¬
bility to take the number of steps they had, and
then with the demonstrators on the field, they
were marching into the crowd, and it would have
been so easy for something to happen. I was quite
surprised something didn’t happen, you know.

So, I think maybe that portion of the program
should have been changed. Maybe the bayonets
should not have been attached to the rifles, or the
Sierra Guard should have moved to another lo¬
cation on the field so as not to be in a direct con¬
flict with the crowd. So, I think that things were
handled poorly on both sides. But it was such a
spur-of-the-moment thing, there really wasn’t too
much, I guess, they could do about it. I don’t think
they expected the demonstration that they had,
really, [laughter]

Right. Yes, I don’t think so either. What about the
caravan—the students who stopped the caravan?
How do you feel about this? Could this have been
handled any differently than it was?

234

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

I was not there at the time that the caravan
was stopped, and so I don’t know really what
happened, other than what I heard happened. I
really don’t know what they could have done
about it. Maybe the students should not have
stopped the caravan. But once the caravan was
stopped, there wasn’t anything really they could
do about it, other than what they did: get out and
try to talk with the students.

Right, right. OK. What do you think was the most
effective part of both the Governor’s Day obser¬
vance and the demonstration? What did you feel
was the most effective part of those?

I think the most effective part, as far as the
peace demonstration was concerned, was when
they marched into the field, really—when they
started coming up over the hill. I was standing
down at the field at the time being a member of
the brigade. It was very impressive to see four or
five abreast, a column, coming up through the
gates, and it just seemed to come and come and
come. They outnumbered the cadets, I’d say, at
least two-to-one, maybe three-to-one. And it was
very impressive to realize that this much interest
could be stirred up on the University of Nevada
campus, because this has never happened before.
So, that was impressive.

But then, as far as the Governor’s Day cel¬
ebrations themselves, I think that the impressive
part was the fact that the cadets did not lose con¬
trol. Because when people are marching behind
you and making obscene gestures and comments,
your individual reaction is, you know, “You
dirty . . . .” [laughter] You want to get out there
and clobber them because, you know, “I’m doing
my thing. You go ahead and do your thing, and
don’t interfere with me when I do it.”

Right, right. Do you think the reaction of both
the demonstrators and the ROTC and the admin¬
istration was correct at the time? Do you think
that the administration or someone else could
have reacted any differently there while the thing
was happening?

As far as the reaction on the official part of
the administration and Dr. N. Edd Miller and the
gathering and the ROTC Department there, I don’t
think they could have done anything differently,
really. They appealed to the students not to dis¬
rupt the ceremonies, and there was not much else
they could do.

Had police officers been brought in, tried to
move the people off the field, it would have been
all over. I mean, mass rioting, essentially, would
have broken out, in my opinion, which is not at
all what a university campus is all about. And so,
they appealed for logic and reason, and I think
that’s all they could have done.

Now, as far as certain members of the fac¬
ulty that were a portion of the peace movement, I
think that they handled themselves very improp¬
erly, actually. My wife was in the stands at the
time sitting near where Professor Adamian was,
and he was encouraging the students. They were
sitting in the stands. He encouraged them to move
from the stands onto the field. He also was en¬
couraging them to remove pieces of the uniform
or hats and things, knock off the hats of the ca¬
dets. And he was just trying to cause trouble, re¬
ally. Now, this was entirely inappropriate. As a
faculty member, I think that he should have a little
sense of responsibility toward the university com¬
munity. And an occurrence like this is nothing
that will build the respect of the university in the
eyes of the community.

So, as far as select faculty members such as
Professor Adamian, I don’t think they handled
themselves at all properly. The students in the
demonstration and the students in the ROTC bri¬
gade, I think, handled themselves quite well. Be¬
cause when you have someone encouraging you
to move down on the field, it’s a natural reac¬
tion—two or three are going to go. And then,
since you are a part of the demonstration, you
feel an obligation to go down with them. So I
can’t really blame the students for moving onto
the field. Once they were there, when confronted
with the bayonets of Sierra Guardsmen and such,
I think that they handled themselves quite well—
you know, they didn’t get out of the way, but they

DAVID KELLER

235

moved aside enough so that trouble did not start.
I think that they handled themselves well there,
and then the ROTC brigade did, also.

Why do you feel that some of the demonstrators
in the stands kept disrupting the ceremony? Can
you give any reasons why you think they might
have?

My personal opinion would be that it is more
or less just a group reaction. When you're a part
of a group, you feel a little bigger than you do
when you’re all by yourself, and so there are
things that you can do. I think they were just fry¬
ing to build their image in the presence of the
group, really. If you had taken most of those in¬
dividuals and placed them in the stands by them¬
selves, I don’t think it would have ever occurred,
that it was a group reaction.

Yes, that’s a good point—a very good point. What
was your reaction to the violence that followed
the Governor’s Day thing—the bombing of the
ROTC building and the Hobbit Hole—and do you
have any ideas about who might have done both
of them ?

I do not know at all who did them. I think
that it was entirely inappropriate. I mean, it’s just
absolutely ridiculous, both the bombing of the
Hobbit Hole and the bombing of Hartman Hall.
Because what puipose does it serve? I mean, there
is no purpose served by destroying. I imagine
Hartman Hall is probably federal property—that’s
a lot of trouble, [laughter] You get the FBI in on
a thing like that, and you can get in all kinds of
trouble, and it’s not worth what you get from it.

You ’re right.

I mean, it doesn’t demonstrate anything, re¬
ally. Now, destroying the private property located
adjacent to the university, the Hobbit Hole, is
absolutely ridiculous—especially the time that it
was chosen to be destroyed, two or three o’clock
in the morning. People live there; it’s a private

residence. Now, death could have resulted easily
from that. And so it was a completely asinine
movement, really. I mean, it’s ridiculous. The
person who did it, I don’t think, really thought
about what he was doing. Because no one de¬
serves to die for that—not even the Kent State
students. I mean, there is really no puipose in their
dying. And there would be no puipose in some¬
one dying in the Hobbit Hole fire bombing ei¬
ther. Maybe it was the same person that did both
things. It could very easily have been. Whoever
did them, I think if they are ever caught, they
should be strung up. [laughter]

There was sort of a polarization on the campus
at that time. You know, somebody was trying to
fit people into “the cowboys” and what-have-you
and “the hippies. ” Do you feel that this polar¬
ization may have had an effect on what happened
then ?

I think definitely that it did have an effect. I
think that the responsibility really lies with a few
elected officials in our state, such as Senator
Slattery. I heard his comment as reported on the
TV, and it was entirely inappropriate. He said,
“OK, we have a lot of long-haired hippies up here
stirring up trouble.” And he said, “If the admin¬
istration can’t handle these people, then we ought
to turn the cowboys loose on them.”

Now, no way should that have ever been said,
because that’s asking for trouble, because there
are extremists in both groups, if you want to po¬
larize the people into two groups and make long-
hairs and cowboys. Now, there are extremists in
both groups which are going to be offended by
that and are going to say, “You know, wait,
Slattery’s right. We should be out there and wipe
those people out.” And the bombing of the Hobbit
Hole could have definitely been a direct result of
that. I’m not saying that it was, but it could very
easily have been.

You know, they say, “OK, cowboys are
aggies, engineers are the Sundowners.” I think
the way that they characterized the people—well,
I don’t really think that they had any business at

236

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

all saying that. I was personally offended by the
fact that I am an engineering student and being
associated with the Sundowners (OK, not with
the aggies—that doesn’t matter—but the
Sundowners are a group that’s on social proba¬
tion or has been kicked off campus; I’m not sure
which). Really, I was quite offended by being as¬
sociated with them.

When they were pulled into court, in the news
media it said, “The Sundowners, a University of
Nevada organization,” which I don’t think they
are. I don’t think they represent the University of
Nevada, and I don’t think they should have been
included at all. [laughter]

Yes, right. As an engineering student, what was
sort of the feeling over there? Did many of them
feel the same way you did, offended by this, or
how did the bulk of the engineering students feel?
I know it’s hard for you to characterize now, but
canyon give an idea of how they might have felt?

Well, from their reaction the next day in my
classes, I’d say that the majority of them didn’t
really appreciate being classified as cowboys.
Now, most of them were not offended by being
classified as against long-hairs, or against the radi¬
cal element on campus associated with fire bomb¬
ings and the destruction of Hartman Hall. They
were not offended by that. I guess an engineer,
really, is kind of a conservative fellow. And so
most of them agree with the policy of the presi¬
dent. So, as far as being associated in that man¬
ner, they weren’t offended. But to be considered
a cowboy, along with aggies and Sundowners,
really bothered them, [laughter]

Right, right. OK. Do you think that all of this hurt
the image of the university or helped it with the
community and with the students, themselves?

With the community of Reno essentially be¬
ing very conservative (kind of backwards, actu¬
ally), it was a tremendous damage to the image
with the fire bombings that occurred and the dis¬
ruption of the Governor’s Day ceremony. I think
it was not good for the university, really.

As far as student opinion, I really couldn’t
classify the student opinion. I can classify my own
opinion, and I’d say that, as far as I’m concerned,
it kind of built the image of the university in my
mind, the fact that people would get off their
duffs. I’ve been here for four years, and people
have just been sitting around. Really nothing has
ever bothered them. Well, finally something has
come to bother enough people that they’re will¬
ing to get out and do something about it, actively
participate in a movement, either for or against.
And in that way, it built my opinion of the uni¬
versity, that maybe it is becoming more of an
educational experience, I mean, where people are
moved by what they know. Well then, I feel that
that’s education. If they just sit around and never
do anything, never act on the knowledge they
have, never act with the beliefs they have, they
aren’t really educated. They may have a doctor¬
ate degree, but if they never do anything with it,
it’s a waste, useless.

That’s a very good point. What do you feel an
educational institution should be?

OK, most people will disagree with me, prob¬
ably, but I feel that there should be a political
awareness on the campus, because these are the
people in the country who are most educated, have
the greatest amount of knowledge, and are the
most competent for running the country, truth¬
fully. In a democracy you have to have an edu¬
cated electorate, and here’s where the educated
electorate lies. So, I feel that it is the responsibil¬
ity of the university to be politically aware.

As far as going out and engaging in political
activity—and I mean, you know, sponsoring can¬
didates and such—I really don’t think that this is
a part of the university function. The fact that a
student in the university worked for a candidate
is, I think, part of the university function. The
university itself cannot sponsor these things, but
they have to be politically aware like that. The
knowledge that they have has to be used for some¬
thing. I think that everyone at the completion of
a bachelor’s or, at maximum, at the completion
of a master’s, should be required to go out and

DAVID KELLER

237

make use of this—practice with it in some man¬
ner—before they go on and get their Ph.D. We
have quite a few professors at the university who,
you know, just stayed in the ivory tower all along.
And so they can talk and tell you an awful lot,
true, but they’ve never been outside to find out if
it works. And I think that for the university to be
successful, it also has to work, and the people in
it have to know how they can apply their knowl¬
edge and use their knowledge.

That’s a really good point. Then what function
could the university have—or should it have
one—in shaping public opinion? And it’s sort of
related to what you ’ve already been saying.

Right. The university, itself, has no respon¬
sibility to shape public opinion, but the members
of the university community have a responsibil¬
ity to be politically aware, to go out and work for
their candidates, to work for their ideals, and to
express the ideas that they believe in.

What actions? You already mentioned two, about
the Sierra Guardsmen. What actions do you think
were most helpful in preventing further violence,
let’s say, after the demonstrations on the
Governor’s Day? Could there have been further
violence, and who or what actions were most ef¬
fective in preventing more?

After the demonstrations? I’m not sure I re¬
ally understand, because it was after the
Governor’s Day that the major violence occurred:
the fire bombings at the Hobbit Hole and Hartman
Hall. Now, I don’t know, [laughter]

Could there have been more after that? After the
Hobbit Hole, you know . . . ?

Oh, you mean further violence after what was
done? I really don’t know. I think that the
administration’s action by allowing the memo¬
rial service to be held for the Kent State students
was proper. I think that, really, this kind of toned
down the violence on the campus, because it

brought to light the fact that the violence really
isn’t accomplishing anything.

I mean, OK, we have four people dead. What
did the violence accomplish there? It didn’t ac¬
complish anything; it shut off the lives of four
people. The talks that were given at the memo¬
rial service—most of them were not politically
biased talks. It was talk of, you know, “Look, this
is what’s happening in the country. Somewhere
we’ve got to straighten things out. There’s a prob¬
lem here.” I think it was Judge Hyde from the
College of State Trial Judges who spoke there,
and his talk was just fantastic. I mean, if we can
get together and really do as he admonished us to
do, the logical reasoning and working for these
things, then we’re going to accomplish something.

We had the group of aggies and the
Sundowners, engineers—cowboys—that came
into the memorial service after it started. They
moved en masse around behind the speaker and
sat down to one side, and I thought for sure that
we were going to have violence at this point. But
I guess when they heard what was being said and
realized, you know, these people know what
they’re talking about, they have a little bit of logic
and sensibility on their side, too—and we aren’t
the only smart people on campus—I think that
this kind of allayed a lot of the violence that could
have occurred.

Good. If you had to characterize the various
groups on campus (it’s bad to label, I’m sure, but
if you had to characterize them) do you feel that
the long-hairs on this campus tend to be sort of
anti-educational, here to stir up trouble? Or do
you feel that they are amongst the ones interested
in an education? Or can’t they be characterized?

I do not think the majority of long-hairs can
be characterized as being against education. I
know quite a few of the leaders in the protest
movement—Dave Slemmons, Dan Teglia. These
people, I know them personally, and I don’t think
their puipose is to disrupt. Their puipose is only
to cause a political awareness among their fel¬
low students: an awareness of what is occurring

238

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

in the country and, when possible, reactions to it
and ways to change what is happening. I don’t
think that they are against education at all. I think
they realize the need of education, and they are
here to be educated, really. They’re not here to
stir up trouble.

There are a few individuals who I’ve come
in contact with that I don’t think really are at the
university as far as to learn and to promote learn¬
ing. I think they’re here to stir up trouble and make
themselves feel big in their own eyes. I refer spe¬
cifically, actually, to Jesse Sattwhite, and he’s
been a very controversial figure on campus. I’ve
had personal run-ins with him.

At the meetings prior to all the Governor’s
Day activities, we had black-white meetings
where you’d get together and find out what is
occurring. And I sat at a table with Jesse Sattwhite
and listened to him and what he says—and truth¬
fully, I did not get the opinion that these were
things that he had thought about and decided were
important. I get the opinion that these were things
someone has told him, who may be in associa¬
tions with other groups. He’d heard these ideas,
and they sound good, and they impress people,
and so he’s going to use these things. He’s going
to say them to impress people. But then his ac¬
tions do not agree at all with what he says.

He’s employed here as a student at the uni¬
versity, and paychecks come out every two weeks.
(I have a friend who works in the payroll office.)
He goes down always two or three days before
the paychecks are done and threatens and physi¬
cally abuses the ladies who work as secretaries
in this office. He says, “I want my paycheck now \”
And one day Johnny Gonzales and [Henry]
Hattori were both out of the office, and Jesse
Sattwhite came up to the cashier’s cage. And the
ladies working the cashier’s cage just walked
away; they weren’t going to have anything to do
with him. My friend [Mark] was the only male in
the office at the time, and they said, ’'Mark, why
don’t you go answer the cage.”

So he went out there, and Jesse said, “I want
my check now.”

Mark said, “Checks come out on Friday.”

Jesse Sattwhite reached through the cages—
the bars of the cage—and pulled him up against
the bar and said, “Look it. Buddy, I want my check
now.”

Mark said, “Sorry, fella, I haven’t got the
checks. There’s not a thing I can do for you.”

So Jesse let him down, and the next day a
bruise appeared all along the side of Mark’s face
where he pulled him into the bars. Now, this, in
my opinion, is entirely uncalled for. I mean, he is
not practicing what he preaches, where, you know,
people should be treated as human beings, and
there should be fair and equal rights for all people
and such. He’s not demonstrating that he really
believes that in his actions.

Well, what do you think the university should do
about people who tend to be troublemakers on
either side of the spectrum?

I think that they should be removed from the
university environment. Unless they show them¬
selves qualified and mature enough to hold the
responsibility that a university entails, I don’t
think that they should be allowed to go to the
university. I think that’s probably a major prob¬
lem with the American university system today,
that there are too many people here who really
are not qualified for a university education.

I think that there should be a greater empha¬
sis probably on technical education, vocational
education, really. Many of the people such as
Jesse—who has the intelligence and has the abil¬
ity to go to a vocational or a technical training
school and learn something—become productive
for society in that manner.

But on a university campus where he has the
responsibility .... Well, I mean, see, they fall
back to my idea that the university should slate
public opinion, should be a politically aware in¬
stitution. Now, he does not demonstrate the com¬
petence to go along with his political awareness.
He says, “OK, I’m at the university. I should be
politically aware.” But his actions are not politi¬
cally aware—only his words.

These types of people are dangerous, like
Professor Adamian. OK, he’s very politically

DAVID KELLER

239

aware, and he’s very vehemently opposed to what
is occurring in Indochina. OK, now that’s good,
and I’m very happy that he has an opinion, and
that he goes and holds to it. But when he calls for
violence to change people’s opinions, to try to
cause other people to have his opinion, this is not
the way it works. And it can’t work. It degrades
the movement in the eyes of that individual.

So these types of people, Professor Adamian
and Jesse Sattwhite, should be removed from the
university environment, because they are trouble¬
makers. They aren’t adding to the educational
experience or educational awareness and politi¬
cal awareness that the students should have.

Who should have that responsibility, do you feel,
to remove, say, a faculty member or a student?

Now, that’s a very good question, because
students are calling for more involvement in the
university environment and more involvement in
determining a curriculum and choosing instruc¬
tors. I really don’t think that the student is quali¬
fied for this type of activity. I mean, if I knew
what I should be taught in the class, I wouldn’t
have to take that class, because I already know it.
So I think that the instructor should be really the
one who determines a curriculum, because he,
supposedly, is the one who knows what it’s all
about and what you need.

If I knew what I needed, I wouldn’t have to
come to the university, so to speak. So I don’t
think that this responsibility should be in the
hands of a student as far as their curriculum is
concerned, as far as determining who their teach¬
ers are. However, a student should have some sort
of say, because a student is the one who is inti¬
mately involved with the instructor, who knows
whether the instructor is able to present material
to them and knows what kind of material the in¬
structor presents. So they should be involved: the
administration should be open to comment from
the students and accept what they have to say at
face value, I mean, because the student is involved
with the instructor.

Now, as far as the actual removal of the in¬
structor, I think that this could only be left really

in the hands of the administration, the president
of the university, and directors of personnel for
the university—the Board of Regents, or who¬
ever this may be. I think it would have to be left
in their hands, but they would have to be respon¬
sive to student requests in this, too. Because even
though they have a man who’s definitely a quali¬
fied Ph.D., I think that they should look at stu¬
dent response and realize that if this individual is
not qualified as an instructor, if he’s not present¬
ing the educational material his classes are to
contain, he should be removed. He should be re¬
moved even if they think he’s very conservative,
doesn’t stir up any trouble on campus, and is the
greatest man in the world because he’s not a
troublemaker.

What about the removal of a student that you feel
is out-of-line? On whose shoulders should that
responsibility fall?

Again, I would have to say the administra¬
tion, the president of the university, the dean of
men or women, or whoever is involved—because
they have talked with the student, they know what
he has done, and they see these things.

Well, the handling of the Jesse Sattwhite case,
I think, was entirely inappropriate: the fact that
they went ahead and tried to prosecute, proffer
charges through the state attorney and such. This
was entirely inappropriate, because I don’t think
it is the university’s responsibility, actually, to
incur a criminal-type punishment or to deal out a
criminal punishment, to see that this is done. Al¬
though, it is the university’s responsibility to see
that the individual who is guilty of these things is
removed from the university environment and
placed outside. Now, as soon as he’s a non-stu¬
dent, if he were to come in and cause these dis¬
ruptions, well, then it’s the local law authorities
that have authority over this individual now.

So, I think the administration should have
suspended a student like Jesse right now. Just say,
“OK, you are no longer a student at the univer¬
sity. You don’t conduct yourself in the proper
manner to be classified as a student.” So, the ad-

240

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

ministration should have the responsibility, I
guess, [laughter]

Do you think there is a pretty good interplay here
at this university between the administration and
the students? Do you think that they communi¬
cate pretty well together?

I feel that there’s excellent inteiplay between
Dr. Miller and the students. I have a tremendous
respect for Dr. Miller simply because if you ask
him something, he’s going to give you a straight
answer. He’s not going to beat around the bush
or tty to give you an answer that will appeal to
you. He’s going to tell you what he knows and
what is occurring. Now, this is what we need:
honesty, forthrightness on the part of both stu¬
dents and administration. So, I have tremendous
respect for Dr. Miller. I think that he’s an excel¬
lent administrator, and there’s excellent commu¬
nication between him and the students.

Other members of the faculty or the admin¬
istration—well, Dean Sam Basta—I’m not sure
that there’s really that much communication there.
I mean, he’s open to communication, you can go
in and see him, but I don’t think he really listens
to you, to tell you the truth, [laughter] And you
can’t really rely a lot on what he says either. I
mean, he says something more to appease the
crowd or what he wants to hear rather than what
really is happening. So, I think maybe there is a
lack of communication on the lower echelons,
but right at the top I think that communication is
excellent as far' as the University of Nevada is
concerned.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
particular area is headed? Or is it?

Well, that’s a very difficult question. I don’t
know. Wow. [laughter] I think as far as a univer¬
sity function, the peace movement now is estab¬
lished, and will continue moving until either their
ends are met, or something drastic—of national
significance—occurs which would change the
entire outlook as it is today. I think that it is es¬

tablished on campus and will continue to be ac¬
tive on campus. As far as being active in the com¬
munity, the community of Reno is really kind of
strange, and most of the people in it are ... . Well,
it’s an older type community. I mean, the ideas
are more conservative and more towards the past
rather than looking toward the future, coming up
with new ideas, new solutions to problems. I don’t
think Reno, as a community, has this outlook at
all.

I think, in fact, the entire state of Nevada is
kind of backward on this, which is not really the
state’s fault. I mean, there are not very many
people here. Most of the people here have been
here all their life. There’s not a great amount of
new people coming in. In the northern part of the
state it’s kind of static, really. And so I think as
far as a community involvement peace movement,
I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere at present.
In a few years this could drastically change. But
a university movement is established, I think, and
it’s serving a good puipose. It is bringing this is¬
sue before the community, letting the community
be involved in it. And so, I think it is good. Actu¬
ally, it’s a necessary part of the university envi¬
ronment.

Do you think the university has been a force, and
is going to be a force, for progress in the commu¬
nity? Do you think they have a real influence on
how the people in the state feel?

I think that they do on the general public, if
they can continue to maintain support within the
legislative authority. But, I mean, we’ve had some
really ridiculous comments made from our legis¬
lators. Gibson (I think is his name, from the south¬
ern part of the state) and Church (another sena¬
tor) brought up the fact that they believe that funds
to the university should be shut off until the uni¬
versity can show that it’s able to handle itself,
that the violence and the demonstrations that
we’ve had are not proper.

I think these people are really playing right
into the hands of the small minority in this coun¬
try who want to shut down the institution, be-

DAVID KELLER

241

cause the universities are where people are edu¬
cated, prepared, made politically aware, and made
capable voters—a capable electorate—in the so¬
ciety. And I think that there are individuals who
would like to see the society, as such, destroyed,
so their first purpose is, “Well, let’s close down
the university. Let’s stop this educational pro¬
cess.”

People like Church and Gibson are playing
right into the hands of these people. They’re shut¬
ting off funds because maybe there are four or
five students in the University of Nevada, Reno
campus who could be classified as those desiring
to disrupt the educational process. And they’re
playing into their hands. They say, “OK, we’ll
cut off funds,” and the other 4,996 people at the
University of Nevada, Reno campus will no
longer be educated. With people like this in the
senate, we have a definite problem in our state
legislative branches because they don’t realize
what they’re doing, and I don’t think that they’re
qualified to be senators. So we have an impact, I
think, on the general people of the community,
but this impact is going to be lessened by the leg¬
islature because of what they are saying—the
ideas that were prevalent then.

Are there any other comments that you ’cl like to
make generally about the situation, the univer¬
sity, the community, or the issues that we’ve been
talking about? Remember that after this, if you
feel that you remember something that you’d like
to come back and add, you may do so. I mean,
this isn’t it, you know, if you think of other things
that you ’d like to add.

Let’s see. Right now I think I’ve vented my
opinion on everything.

Lawrence M. Kirk

June 12, 1970

OK. If you ’ll say your name and your residence
and your position.

My name is Larry Kirk. Position: I'm the
broadcast editor for the College of Agriculture,
which is radio and TV. You want my hometown
or home address?

Yes.

I live at 2630 Appollo Way, in Reno. It’s al¬
ways misspelled, [laughter]

OK. Why do you think you were chosen to be
interviewed?

Let’s put it this way: I am the faculty advisor
to the Aggie Club. Now, the Aggie Club took
quite an active reaction to what went on, so I
would suspect that that’s probably why, because
I was with the students, for better or for worse.

Yes. What was your own reaction to President
Nixon’s decision to go into Cambodia?

Speaking personally, the Cambodian move
makes as much sense as anything in Southeast
Asia. It’s my own opinion, to tell the whole story,
that we ought not to have been there in the first
place, because it was an internal civil war which
had communist overtones to it. But the fact is
that we are there, and you have to do things to
protect American troops. And so, my own reac¬
tion was it’s as smart as anything that’s happened
there in a very bad situation.

In what way do you think the Cambodian deci¬
sion was related to what happened next on our
campus?

Well, I think to answer this I’d have to go
back to last fall. The university sent me to school
in San Francisco for nine weeks. I spent most of
September, October, and November in San Fran¬
cisco, and I was there during the two moratori¬
ums, where they marched from the Ferry Build¬
ing to Golden Gate Park, et cetera. So, what hap¬
pened there, I think, was what happened here in
a smaller sense of the word. The students are
completely appalled by what’s going on in South¬
east Asia. They don’t understand it from a mili-

244

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

tary or a civilian point of view. And I think this
is the only way they feel that they can react to it,
quite frankly. Whether it’s a smart move or not,
it’s an involvement of a widening of the
Indochina war, and that’s the only way you can
react to it, I think. They felt this was the only
thing they could do to be heard.

Yes. What was your reaction to events in other
parts of the country related to the Cambodia de¬
cision?

Well, I feel that the thing at Kent State, for
example, was a complete comedy of errors—a
very tragic comedy of errors, but nevertheless a
comedy of errors. If they wanted the national
guard on the campus, to have well-trained na¬
tional guardsmen there, well-equipped, and un¬
der good leadership, is one thing. With the Kent
State situation, according to a report I read, which
was labeled official—at least, I have to believe
it was official—the guardsmen who were there
were new in the guard. They weren’t as well-
trained in riot control, for one must have great
patience if, perhaps, they could have been. They
did not have the proper leadership at the proper
time, and they reacted, I suppose, in the way a
lot of us would under this circumstance. But it
was a very tragic thing.

The things that happened all over the coun¬
try, I think, relate to the fact that students today
simply don’t understand the war in Southeast
Asia; I’m not sure any of us do. I went through
the tail-end of World War II and to Korea, and it
wasn’t very nice, but at least it gives you a broader
perspective. Let’s put it that way. They don’t have
that perspective.

Yes. Turning now to the Governor’s Day activi¬
ties here on our campus, what did you think of
the arrangements made for the observance of
Governor’s Day?

Oh, I think they were no better or no worse
than, perhaps, they’ve ever had. I am very im¬
pressed with the colonel who is the professor of

military science at the present time, and it’s Colo¬
nel Hill, a gentleman whom I’ve watched with
great admiration, quite frankly. He is a profes¬
sional military man, but he is willing to explain
his viewpoints, not just to say,’’This is it, and
you’ll take it or leave it.” So, really, perhaps, the
arrangements were a little better as a result of
Colonel Hill than they might have been other¬
wise. But as an outsider looking into the Mili¬
tary Science Department, it looked no better or
no worse than the memory, really.

Yes. What was your reaction to the demonstra¬
tions that took place on Governor’s Day?

Oh, I think the demonstrations that took place
up there were unfortunate. Not so much as to what
happened on the campus, but Nevada is a basi¬
cally rural state yet, and with the exception of
Las Vegas and the Reno area, basically conser¬
vative. And those people out in the state, we did
great harm to our image with them, something
that I’m afraid we’re going to find out about with
great clarity in the legislature next January. They
simply don’t understand it. The aggie club stu¬
dents, some of them went home on weekends
after that and came back and said, “I tried to ex¬
plain to my parents that I wasn’t involved in
this,”—this is towns like Fallon and what have
you—’’and we didn’t believe in the demonstra¬
tion.”

And they simply weren’t listening. They sim¬
ply said, “Well, there was a riot at the university,
and now, why did you let it happen?”

So, I think that the adults in the state who
have something to say about voting in the legis¬
lature will tell us about this next January. We may
not like it either, [laughter

Did you feel it was necessary to participate in
the Governor’s Day activities or in any of the
demonstrations ?

Personally speaking?

Yes.

LAWRENCE M. KIRK

245

No, I never have. Let me put it this way: the
College of Agriculture is not involved per se. I
have helped in past years arranging the public
address system, but as far as standing up and
participating one way or the other, I really don’t
feel that I could have contributed anything, re¬
ally.

Yes. What do you think was the most effective
part of the demonstration or of the Governor's
Day observance, or both ?

Well, in terms of the students and the admin¬
istration and everyone, I think it was the non¬
reaction, if you will call it that, of the ROTC to
what took place. Here were a group of people
out on the field acting not unlike the Chicago
things of last fall—not nearly as severe—but a
group of people nevertheless out on the field
catcalling and that sort of thing, and the ROTC
never broke rank or anything. Now, if the ROTC
students had broken rank and used their rifle butts
on them, let’s say, I think this would have been a
very bad thing. So, let’s give them credit for keep¬
ing their cool under a very difficult situation.

Yes. What do you think should have been the re¬
action of the various people involved up there at
the stadium—the ROTC, the demonstrators, and
the university administration?

I think people have a right to express their
viewpoints. I would prefer that they do it through
the established channels rather than this. But if
they’re going to do it at a place like Governor’s
Day, the only thing that I wish would have not
happened was that they’d gone out on the field
or blocked the procession. That if the activists
had gone up there with picket signs and had pick¬
eted the entrance, made a point at the entrance,
and had gone in and sat in one section, had been
quiet during the proceedings and perhaps after
the proceedings, then they could have had a little
cheering section, this sort of thing. Without go¬
ing out on the field and without disrupting the
events as they took place, they would have made

their point much better. I think they hurt them¬
selves more than they hurt anybody else.

The university administration is in a very
difficult place. When I was a kid, I lived in Loui¬
siana for awhile. And they had a saying down
there that you either fished or cut bait, which
meant that anything you did really was wrong. I
think the administration from this point
[laughter] What do you do? If you overreact with
force .... Now, as a result of the students sit¬
ting in front of the car, some Reno policemen
were called by the campus police, which didn’t
help anything. So, there was a tendency to over¬
react. What do you do? You can’t overreact; you
can’t underreact. Anything you do is wrong. The
administration has my sympathies, [laughter] I
don’t have the answers for them.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day, the fire bombing?

Well, two things. Let me interject now what
some of the students from the College of Agri¬
culture did. As a result of the Governor’s Day
activity and as a result of the word around the
campus that at the next meeting of the ASUN
Senate there was going to be a petition asking
for a strike and to shut down the school, shut
down the university, by certain people, the con¬
servative students, the aggie club members, the
rodeo club members, most of the letterman club,
the Sundowners (who are supposed to be non¬
persona, but they are), the engineering students
started meeting together to say, “What about
this?”

And they determined that they wanted the
university to run. They went to the senate meet¬
ing on that particular Wednesday night and made
their point. And, as a result, the petition for a
strike on Friday was a very watered-down one—
a voluntary situation that you could or could not
go to class as you felt. There would be a memo¬
rial service, et cetera. After the ASUN meeting
the aggie students stayed there. The two coali¬
tions were there.

246

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

I was in the building there until about 1:00
in the morning, from 1:00 to 1:30 when this took
place. Most of the students were there. Now, it’s
my feeling that .... There were four people at
the senate meeting who tried to arouse both sides
against each other; they were non-students, well
identified, I’m sure, by other people, by name
and everything else. The students recognized
them in the senate meeting for what they were,
that they were trying to pit the two sides against
each other. Even though the students didn’t agree
with each other, they agreed that these four guys
were no good, really, and these four people left
the senate meeting. They said, in some very in¬
teresting four-letter words, what they thought of
the senate and whose senate it was. One could
conclude from this that they felt they had not
accomplished what they wanted to at the senate
and had gone out and done this as a desperation
act. So, the students, however, did not overreact
to it.

I thought one of the things that probably will
happen after we’d heard of the fire bombing is
that there would be a great overreaction, but it
seemed to me to mold the student body more to¬
gether. Whoever did the fire bombing really did
us kind of a favor—a backhanded favor, if you
will, in doing this—because it seemed to bring
them closer together from my point of view.

The Hobbit Hole was another thing. Doug
Sherman, who has been in charge of the Hobbit
Hole this last year, and Roberta, who was there
before, are friends of mine. I have an ironic situ¬
ation, I suppose. I hang around the Center for
Religion and Life. I helped put the thing together
in a very minor way, but I represent the Episco¬
pal Church in helping put it together, and I knew
those guys. The Hobbit Hole thing again served
in a backhanded way to bring the students to¬
gether, because if Doug and those other two fel¬
lows hadn’t been in the kitchen awake, there
would have been some people badly hurt that
night. There’s no doubt about it. And fate, or
whatever you want to call it, was with us. Again,
the student body realized what a terrible thing
violence is, so I think their reaction, from my

point of view, to this violence, was that it helped
put the student body back together.

Yes. That’s very interesting. What category of
participant in all of the various affairs—the stu¬
dents, the faculty, or outsiders—do you think was
most importan t in fomen ting the violence on the
campus?

Well, there are two faculty members who
have been named by the Board of Regents as the
bad guys. It’s interesting. This is an aside, but
Dr. Adamian and Fred Maher and Dave Phoenix
from the English Department teach English
classes in the College of Agriculture building
during the spring semester at eleven o’clock on
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Everybody used
to stand out in the hall and listen to their English
classes because they taught a lot of things, re¬
ally. [laughter] I don’t know if they’re all that
good or they’re all that bad, but our aggie stu¬
dents who went to their classes said they were
terribly interesting. They may not have learned
all the English in the world, though. Well, they
did learn a lot of English. They learned a lot of
other things about people’s attitudes and what
have you. So I'm not here to judge Dr. Adamian
or Mr. Maher or anything like that. That was
merely an observation on the side.

Perhaps under the university code—well,
undoubtedly under the university code—those
two gentlemen are in violation of the university
code, and the new process of the faculty senate
will determine their punishment, if any, for this.
I don’t think they had, however, as much influ¬
ence on the students as perhaps they’d like to
think they had. Gunter Hiller, another faculty
member who’s been in some difficulty, has been
active working with the students. Ben Hazard has
been active working with the students. I don’t
think that any of those people, however, really
created the violence. On the other side, we’ve
got some students who are so violently against
the draft that they would do literally anything to
evade the draft and yet not leave the country. And
they’ve got a point. Under today’s society, how

LAWRENCE M. KIRK

247

does one really justify the draft in certain terms,
particularly to go to Southeast Asia?

But to come down to what I think, I really
think that these four outsiders who were on the
campus and others who came in . . . and I'll in¬
clude a state senator with this who made a com¬
ment that what really ought to happen up here
was that the cowboys ought to get out their horses
and become a vigilante group like in the 1880s
or 1860s and clean out everybody. The aggie club
and others sent him a letter and said, “Thanks
for nothing. You just made us look ten times
worse than we ever thought of being.” And he
was really on the conservative point of view. But
the students who represent that view, he didn’t
serve. So, I would say the outsiders outside the
university community created more havoc, taken
in the light of what I’ve just said.

Yes. What actions do you feel were most effec¬
tive in preventing more violence in the situation
following the fire bombing?

Well, from the, perhaps, conservative point
of view—the student conservative point of
view—those students had met before the Wednes¬
day night ASUN Senate meeting and had deter¬
mined that they didn’t want the university shut
down. They probably would tolerate a voluntary
thing, which they did. Well, at any rate, on Fri¬
day following the ASUN Senate meeting, we had
the strike. Some of the pickets came to the Col¬
lege of Agriculture building, and they picketed
our breezeway and our walkway, which was fine,
and they had girls there, which was interesting
to note. And then they decided, well, they weren’t
really getting the job done, because nobody was
paying any attention to them. So, they changed
the girl pickets to boy-type pickets and they went
inside the building. Well, promptly some of our
big-type people—I thought it rather kind of in¬
teresting—just picked them up like children and
carried them back outside and said, “You picket
out here, or we’ll have something to say about
this.”

Really, they could have hit them right along¬
side the jaw, and there would have been a great

deal of trouble. Everybody, I think, showed some
restraint. They were exercising their point of
view, but they showed some restraint. After the
Kent State memorial at noon on that Friday, we
invited everybody on the campus to come to the
conference room at the College of Agriculture
building and see if we couldn’t talk this thing
out. We’d been talking at the senate meeting, and
we’d been talking at other meetings at college
and in the center and such places. But we really
felt after the Kent State thing, because all of the
aggies and the cowboys coalition marched into
the memorial and restrained themselves from
saying one word ... I think, with great effort,
but they did. [laughter] They really didn’t appre¬
ciate the whole thing. They thought it was use¬
less and all of this sort of thing, but they didn’t
say anything. And afterwards they said, “Well,
let’s talk about it some more and see if we really
can’t come to some conclusion.”

So, we had probably 200 to 400 people, de¬
pending on how you count the noses, in the con¬
ference room that afternoon. And we had all the
known leaders. John Dodson from the center
moderated it. Fie sat on a table in the center of it.
On one side of the room, or one end of the room,
were the conservatives. At the other end we had
various people: Dr. Adamian was there; Fred
Maher was there; Gunter Fliller was there; Ben
Flazard was there, just to name some of those—
and I don’t mean to single them out by naming
them—and a great many students. The one who
is violently anti-draft. Jack Curtis—he has an
anti-draft committee going on the campus—was
there and was quite a spokesman. On our side a
student by the name of John Lesag of Basque
descent from Cedarville, California. And I don’t
mean to say “our side”—on the conservative
side—but he was quite a spokesman.

Another student by the name of Steve Maya,
who is from Tucson and was on the football team
as well as being an aggie, was there. In spite of
the fact that they had violent differences of phi¬
losophy, they soon discovered to their satisfac¬
tion, in talking, that they had more in common
than they had in dissent, and violence wasn’t
going to cure anything. And I think if we’d have

248

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

really had some violence on the campus that both
sides would have gone together to put it down.

I think our students are smarter than we give
them credit for. Certainly smarter than certain
members of the Reno Police Department give
them credit for. One member of the Reno Police
Department scares me to death. He told me quite
frankly that if he was ever called on the campus
to put out a riot, how he would do it. and we
would all look like swiss cheeses if he did it.
[laughter]. And that doesn’t excite me too much.
Well, it excites me. but it doesn’t impress me too
much. So, I think our students are smarter than
we give them credit for.

And under the leadership of President Miller,
we are creating a more active student govern¬
ment that has more responsibility. I think that the
fruits of this were borne out at least in part in
this, that the students are more responsible than
most people think they arc.

Yes. How do you think events on campus affect
the university’s image outside? We touched on
this earlier.

In so far as the College of Agriculture is con¬
cerned, we’re in great trouble. And this is not an
opinion of the college. I will put a disclaimer on
this—this is my own particular opinion. But we
deal with people .... Well, let me put it another
way; let me start over again. There are 130 com¬
munities in Nevada, roughly, of any size that you
can say this is a community or this is a township.
It’s an organized thing. One hundred and three
of those are of less than 1,000 population. So
we’re only talking about 27 towns in the state
that go over 1,000 in population. They’re very
rural. They’re very conservative. Irrespective of
whether they registered as a Democrat or Repub¬
lican, they’re still conservative, for better or for
worse, and I don’t criticize them for it. But these
people simply can’t understand why this hap¬
pened.

During this I had to go to the board meeting
of the Nevada State Cattle Association, which is
one of the more influential and outspoken agri¬
cultural groups in the state. And a rancher who

is about as big as a door accosted me during that
meeting and says, “You do something about that.”

So during the process of the meeting, I was
asked to talk to him about it. I hesitated, because
we’ve had some problems with people from the
college expressing opinions publicly that have
gotten us into some difficulty. And so, I put dis¬
claimers on it, and I talked in non-innuendos as
much as possible. But really the point of the
whole thing was at the end they weren’t listen¬
ing. They just came right back and said, “You
clean that mess up, and you clean it up right now.”

They didn’t listen to a thing I said, really. I
wasted thirty minutes trying to explain patiently
to them using chronological events as to why
these things happened. I think we’ve hurt our¬
selves very badly. I think in Las Vegas and Reno,
while not as conservative as the cow counties,
we’ve hurt ourselves. And I’ve touched on this
before: I think we’ll find out how bad we hurt
ourselves next January, unfortunately. We all may
have to tighten our belt a little bit, unless the
university can prove to the satisfaction of these
people that we are capable of handling our own
affairs.

Well, two results of this have already come
out. Procter Hug Jr. of the Board of Regents has
issued a code of conduct, which, in effect, says
that the Board of Regents will run certain aspects
of the university, namely the Sagebrush. It hasn’t
been adopted at the time we’re doing this, but I
don’t see much chance that it will not be adopted.
Our people, our county agent staff, our coopera¬
tive extension staff, and other people throughout
the state tell us that this .... And we’ve coun¬
seled with them to not try this—because in their
own communities they are the university—not
to express a big thing like, “We’ll go in and clean
this up,” but to use some common sense. The
replies were mailed and this sort of thing. At least
the College of Agriculture has not been very faith¬
ful on this thing.

Another thing that they simply can’t under¬
stand in the state is the fact that Dr. Adamian
and Mr. Maher led that protest at the Governor’s
Day rally, and it was documented in photographs.
Why didn’t we immediately suspend them? They

LAWRENCE M. KIRK

249

simply don’t understand the university code.
They said, “If that had been us, those guys would
have been at least suspended until they were
proven either innocent or guilty. Now, why didn’t
you do it?”

I, quite frankly, support President Miller,
because, among other things, these gentlemen had
quite a teaching load. And to suddenly suspend
them and try and finish out the semester with
another instructor would have been very diffi¬
cult on a lot of students; they wouldn’t have got¬
ten the semester hours that they paid for in En¬
glish. Perhaps they didn’t get as much English
as they should and a lot of other things, but the
fact remains that there was a continuity of the
courses for about ninety students, for better of
for worse. I concur with the president’s action,
but the people in the state don’t see it; they sim¬
ply can’t understand it.

Yes. What function can the university have in fo¬
cusing public opinion?

It’s obvious that the university can do a great
deal in focusing public opinion, good or bad.
Now, thus far, we’ve managed to do it badly very
successfully. But Johnny Cash wrote a song
awhile back that’s entitled What is Truth ?, and
that, in a nutshell, is the university. We’re search¬
ing for what is truth in a variety of fields, either
scientific or in the arts and sciences. I think if
they would let the student government, for ex¬
ample, this fall when the schools are back in ses¬
sion, go to the various high school assemblies
and just talk to them, that the students in the high
school and their parents . . . because this word
would get back to their parents. Or let them go to
meetings with their parents or at the student gov¬
ernment, the leaders of the student government,
both the activists and the conservatives. I don’t
mean to say just to send the good guys in the
white hats out, so to speak. Send everybody out,
and let them talk.

And the center is doing some of this, too.
The center is having some formal sit-ins where
everybody is getting together. It will focus pub¬
lic opinion on “what is truth.” The university can

do a great deal to sway public opinion for better
or for worse.

Yes. Do you think issues of academic freedom
were involved in participating in a demonstra¬
tion ?

Yes, I do. Well, making this interview an is¬
sue of academic freedom came, and I would be
very honest and say so, that there are people who
feel that we ought to very quietly close the lid on
this and screw it down tight and throw the can in
the river and hope it floats into Pyramid Lake
and is never heard from again, you know, [laugh¬
ter]

And I think we can abuse it. Perhaps this is
one of the reasons that the issue of academic free¬
dom has come up, because some people feel that
Dr. Adamian and Mr. Maher have abused that
intimate freedom. I don’t say that their conduct
was the most gentlemanly I ever saw in the world,
but on the other hand, I give them credit for hav¬
ing the courage of their convictions to stand up
and say what they think, knowing full well that
the wrath of certain people is going to fall right
flat on their head and they’re going to get it right
between the eyes. And they knew what they were
doing when they did it. I don’t know whether
they’re married or not, but I'm sure that their
families will feel the financial bind of this in due
time. Because if they’re dismissed here, they’re
going to find it difficult to get a job somewhere
else. If they stay here, they’re probably going to
score a big flat zero on professional excellence
in their evaluation, and that means no pay raise,
in so many words. There are many ways of tight¬
ening the screws; financially is just one of them.
So, I think that an issue of academic freedom
was certainly involved.

There are groups of people who have gone
to Dr. Barmettler, who is now president of the
faculty senate—he is in the College of Agricul¬
ture—and asked for a readout on this. The Ameri¬
can Association of University Professors are do¬
ing this, and I applaud their efforts, quite frankly.
I think the time has come and gone when we could
categorically say, “Yes, you can say this,” and,

250

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

“No, you can’t say this.” It’s another thing. I have
parents who bring students in the fall, freshman,
who are going to the College of Agriculture, and
they say, “Now, you watch after little John.”

Well, hell, I don’t see him until December,
you know, and by then he’s been in three fights
and everything else, [laughter] The university is
no longer a babysitting function. At one time a
university was a babysitting function. You took
the child, and you had all the hours in the dorm,
and they did things, and they did not do certain
things.

When I went to school, I was a maverick. I
will be honest and say so. I was a veteran, al¬
though there were a lot of GIs in school then.
But I wouldn’t belong to a fraternity or a soror¬
ity for obvious reasons, or I wouldn’t belong to
even the independents, because I just felt like
doing my own thing. My mother called me a beat¬
nik, and I suppose I was, but I made it through in
spite of this, [laughter]

But academic freedom, I think, has to be very
carefully spelled out. And the old concept is gone.
People are not going to admit to it, I suppose,
but it’s gone.

Yes. How can students and faculty be effective
politically, or should they be trying to influence
governmental policies?

Yes, I think they should. For better or for
worse, I think everybody in these troubled times
has an obligation to express his or her view. Let
me back up and explain that. The College of
Agriculture used to be in the middle of the cam¬
pus right down here on the mall, quad, call it what
you will. Some ten years ago, roughly, it was
moved over to Skunk Hollow, which is in the
southeast corner of the campus. The students
there are different in that they come mostly from
small towns, rural areas, the border counties of
California, rural Nevada, rural Utah, rural Idaho,
and there they found their own people, and there
they found their own interest. And a great deal
of apathy suddenly existed towards the student
government and still exists. In fact, the student
government reapportioned itself—the senate—

some three years ago, and they cut the College
of Agriculture from three senators to one, and
nobody protested from the College of Agricul¬
ture. Not a word was heard. And the one sena¬
tor .... You see, we include the School of Home
Economics in the College of Agriculture. The one
senator for the last two years has been a girl from
the School of Home Economics, who have been
very talented young ladies. But they have more
interest than the rest of the aggie students in stu¬
dent government.

Well, when this thing came about, everybody
down there said, “Why?” And suddenly it
dawned on them that they’d gotten just about
what they’d paid for. They’d had a great deal of
apathy toward student government, so that the
political science majors and the drama majors
and the speech majors and the philosophy ma¬
jors from the College of Arts and Science had
taken over student government for all practical
puiposes, even though, I think, probably, Frankie
Sue Del Papa is somewhat of a conservative.
That’s a guess on my part. And Louie Test who
is the president of the senate is also somewhat of
a conservative, but nevertheless the voting power
was with the activists. And the aggie students
said, “Geez, what happened?”

Well, when they figured out what happened,
then they set about doing something about it.
They had meetings, and they decided who was
best qualified to serve on what board, and they
got those appointed to those boards, so that they
put some balance back into the student govern¬
ment. They found out what five years of apathy
will get them. It’ll get them kicked in the side of
the head is what it’ll really get, from their point
of view.

I think that the others really welcomed the
engineers and the aggies and even the
Sundowners coming back in the student govern¬
ment, once they discovered they had more in
common and were getting along quite well. And
I’ll be very surprised if we have any difficulties
in the fall if we continue with this approach. So,
I think, yes, they’d have to.

A beautiful example of this—of course, this
is a law school—but a certain law school had

LAWRENCE M. KIRK

251

dismissed classes for all of the students who will
become actively involved in the political cam¬
paign as well as a worker for a candidate or a
candidates of their choice, and this will be a spe¬
cial project for them.

In fact, it’s interesting to note some of the
students I know who have gone out to P.T.A.
meetings and what have you—and this includes
aggies to an extent, too. Well, the aggies discov¬
ered that an old smelly pair of Levis wasn’t go¬
ing to get them very many friends at a P.T.A.
meeting. And the other students discovered that
a long hairdo or a very short, short miniskirt was
not going to get them any influence at a P.T.A.
meeting or Rotary or anywhere else. And these
students have gone down and gotten a hair cut.
They’re still very much in fashion, but they’ve
lengthened their dress a little bit to where the
men will think about something besides some girl
sitting there with her knees showing, [laughter]
And they are talking to these groups and they’re
listening. So, I really hope that the students get
very much involved in the political campaign.

We, the staff members at the College of Ag¬
riculture, because we’re part federal, are prohib¬
ited by the Smith-Lever law from participating
as committee members in the election—actively
participating. And I deplore this, quite frankly. I
think it’s a disenfranchisement of our role, but I
knew this when I went to work here.

When I was in commercial radio and TV, I
really had great fun with this. Why, I learned how
to shut up. [laughter] But I full well knew this.
This was very carefully explained to me before I
came to work here. So, if I have anybody to
blame, I have myself to blame. I think the advan¬
tages of working at the university and with the
students far - outweigh this, perhaps, disadvantage.

Yes. Where do you think the peace movement in
this area is going now?

Depends on who you’re talking to. [laugh¬
ter] Down the sewer or out .... Let’s see. I want
to collect my thoughts. The peace movement here
is so much affected by what happens over the
hill in Berkeley, particularly, or San Francisco,

that the students here take their leadership from
this particular thing. I wish they didn’t. I wish
the students here, rather than reading in the Ber¬
keley Barb what they’re going to do over there
and then promptly doing it over here, would show
more initiative on their own, whether you agree
with the peace movement or not. I wish they’d
do their own thinking a little more than they are,
although they’re doing a lot of it.

The peace movement here in Nevada will
never really gather the momentum that they want
it to because of the conservative nature of the
state. And I’m not being critical of the state; I’m
very fond of Nevada. I wish I was born and raised
here, as a matter of fact. But in these little com¬
munities, change comes hard and slow, and the
peace movement will gather momentum in Las
Vegas and in Reno on the campuses, but it won’t
go much further than that.

If the peace movement was to go down, let’s
say, into Wingfield Park, now they’ll tolerate a
lot of people going through town who are the
hippie type who stay there, as long as they don’t
do anything else. But the minute they have a rally
there or at the California Building [at Idlewild
Park], why I don’t think they’ll tolerate it very
long. No, they’ll deal with it very forcibly. They’ll
overreact, which will, in the end-run, serve the
militant purpose more than anything else. That’s
what I was scared of here.

This is off the subject, but the one thing I
was scared of was that the reaction of the aggie
students to the other students would be such a
reaction that they would overreact and end up
serving the militants’ cause rather than their own.
Now, these students arc smarter than I give them
credit for. [laughter] They didn’t overreact. I think
they handled it beautifully. And I will admit there
were times when it was going on and I thought
we were going to hell in a handbasket, [laugh¬
ter] We didn’t.

Do you have some other comments you ’cl like to
add?

Oh, I think that the university community is
not perfect. I’m very fond of President Miller. I

252

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

think as a president he’s par excellence. I’d say
he’s tremendous. He does not overreact to these
things. Let me start at the top. There are people
who said the Board of Regents ought to be ap¬
pointed rather than elected, and I say no. For
better or for worse, when the Board of Regents
are elected, they reflect the opinions of the gen¬
eral public in the state, and this is what they ought
to do. We may not agree with them, and we may
say that they’re going to take things away from
us, but still, the system is sound. Board of Re¬
gents reflect the state, and they’ve been very re¬
sponsible.

Then the chancellor with the two campuses,
I think, was a happy solution out of what could
have become two universities a few years back,
with Las Vegas being on one end of the state and
Reno on the other. I came from a state where
every college was on its own, and when they went
to the legislature, it was like a bunch of tom cats
fighting for money. Nobody had any dignity,
[laughter] You got into the scrap for .... And
here we do our washing of our dirty clothes in
private, and we present the finished product to
the legislature, which I think is a good deal more
intelligent.

Well, as I said, I’m very firmly in support of
President Miller and the fact that he is putting
more emphasis on the student government. My
only complaint with the student bill of rights that
was recently enacted is that the Sagebrush , in
effect, does not have to be responsible to any¬
one. I think this is really what Procter Hug is
saying, although he’s saying it differently. I’ve
never seen a paper—and I’ve worked on news¬
papers—or a radio station or a television station,
that the news department did not have to answer
to someone, which is a check and balance sys¬
tem. An editor, irrespective of how radical he may
be, still has to answer to his publisher. And the
publisher may be radical, too, but they still rep¬
resent a check and balance system. Here, for all
practical puiposes up until this point right now,
the Sagebrush doesn’t have to answer to anybody.

We tried to talk to the Sagebrush staff dur¬
ing this last semester. And we know them all by
their first names; we know who they are. We

know they’re students. They’re not bad kids, re¬
ally. But they know they don’t have to answer to
anybody, [laughter] And the Sagebrush printed
a lot of stuff about Berkeley and Kent State which
you could read in the Reno Evening Gazette or
the Journal. And we said to them, “Why don’t
you print what’s on the campus here?”

They told us, in effect, what we could do with
ourselves. So, I would say I feel the Sagebrush
ought to answer to somebody. Unfortunately the
regents are going to overreact, perhaps, on this,
and the Sagebrush is going to answer directly to
the Board of Regents, who are not going to tell
them what to print, but if they don’t like what
they see, they’re going to cut off the money,
[laughter] So, it’s the same effect.

It’s not censorship. Well, it’s a very refined
sort of censorship of the thing. This thing of aca¬
demic freedoms .... The university code under
President Miller has been brought up-to-date, but
every college has bylaws. Every department has
bylaws that go with this. Well, every college
school and department has bylaws. A lot of these
are perhaps rather ancient, and it’s simply be¬
cause they’ve had no need of them until recently.
Nobody’s particular fault. I’d like to see those
brought up-to-date.

I think that the faculty senate, hopefully, will
take up some of these things. I don’t agree en¬
tirely with the American Association of Univer¬
sity Professors on their stands on academic free¬
dom, but I think somewhere in between is where
we ought to be. Well, if they’ve got enough con¬
fidence in you to hire you as a teaching faculty,
or in my case as a professional staff member—I
don’t teach—but they ought to have enough con¬
fidence and let you speak to a certain extent. And
there are people who are going to violate this, as
I’ve said.

One of the problems that happened recently,
some of the people from the university have gone
into the counties and have made some very radi¬
cal statements. And this comes back and, unfor¬
tunately, ends up in the dean’s office, and then
the dean gets pretty unhappy, [laughter] I can’t
blame him, because the people say, “You let this
clown loose. What are you going to do about it?”

LAWRENCE M. KIRK

253

So , I don’t know. I think we can’t look back,
except to review, perhaps, what happened in
terms of the university, in terms of what happened
this spring semester, and say that we’re smart
enough that we won’t go that route again. On the
other hand, I think we can say with some pride
that the students did not overreact—most of them
did not—and that the administration handled the
situation admirably.

I can’t say enough good things for the cen¬
ter, because the center forms a kind of a demili¬
tarized zone across Virginia Street from the cam¬
pus where everybody can go and talk. And there’s
something about the center. I’m very fond of the
place, so I'm perhaps prejudiced, but there’s
something about the atmosphere there that when
you go in ... . Maybe it’s the holy spirit, I don’t
know. Maybe from the real basis the center was
founded on. But you really can’t get mad at any¬
body in that place. At least I’ve never seen any¬
body who had the ability, and I’ve seen some
people go in there so mad they couldn’t stand it
and come out of there and, you know, it’s like
the March lamb, [laughter] He was all calmed
down.

So, I think the center had a great deal to do
with it. There’s an interesting thing about the
center, which is a sidelight on this. Fortunately, I
had something to do with putting it together.
Fortunate from my point of view, because I could
see what makes it go, with the Catholics and the
Episcopal Church and all the Protestant churches,
including the Quakers who are the Friends Soci¬
ety. There’s all types of philosophies involved.
And yet, it all goes ahead very nicely. The beau¬
tiful thing about it is that, somehow or other, they
put together such a beautiful thing that it’s being
exported all over the United States, and centers
are popping up in lots of places based on this
one here. So, even the aggie students who really
aren’t too religious, [laughter] go over there to
functions once in awhile and say, “Gee, you
know, that’s a great place.” So, it must be doing
something.

Fred Maher

June 15, 1970

Now, for the record if you ’ll say your name, your
residence, and your position.

Yes, my name is Fred Maher, and I don’t have
any residence. I guess, wherever I live is, you
know, my residence. I can’t get residence in Reno,
for instance, in order to get out-of-state tuition,
though I would like to. I’m a graduate student,
and I was a teaching assistant up until a couple of
weeks ago when I was fired for participating in
peace group activities. I guess I’m a graduate stu¬
dent still, yes.

OK. Why do you think you were chosen to be in¬
terviewed?

For one of two reasons: either that the per¬
sons who want this information are aware that
I’m one of the main organizers of all the peace
group activities we’ve had here since September,
or else because of the terrible press I’ve been
getting since May 5—mendacious vilification in
the press, radio, and TV that’s unsubstantiated.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia ?

The immediate initial reaction was the guy
is expanding the war, going into another country,
and at this we can go be hypocritical because he
contended when he ran for the presidency that
he’d tty to end that war. Are we doing this right?

That’s fine. You can say whatever you want. In
what way do you think the Cambodian decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

I think it provided the initial impetus for the
students and other concerned persons here to re¬
act to Nixon’s hypocrisy.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodia decision?

Oh! Particularly Kent State, yes. It was an
awareness that the military has become so pow¬
erful in this country that they can go anywhere—
for instance, on college campuses—and kill a
person, and that young persons have to be made
increasingly aware that that’s what the function
of the military is—to kill persons. And if any
young persons go into the military service and
are told, “Pick up a gun and point it at someone,
anyone,” (their own mother even) they’d do it.

256

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

“I think [the Cambodian decision ] provided the initial impetus for the students and other concerned persons here
to read to Nixon's hypocrisy. ” Antiwar graffiti on the campus from around the time of Governor’s Day, 1970.

And if they’re told, “Pull the trigger and shoot,”
they would. That was my reaction to Kent State
and other places across country, and why our
emphasis was on organizing some form of non¬
violent peaceful protest here at Reno.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangements
made for observing Governor’s Day?

The arrangements made for Governor’s
Day .... The persons in the peace group (mainly,
in this particular instance, me) were printed in
the same day’s issue of the college newspaper,
the Sagebrush, which indicated that the coordi¬
nator for the peace group activities for Governor’s
Day—me, Fred Maher—had planned a peaceful,
non-violent Governor’s Day demonstration be¬
ginning in the Manzanita Bowl at 10:00, a march
around the lake behind the library and back to
the Bowl, and that would be our form of a sort of
counter-Governor’s Day protest.

However, it didn’t work out that way. When
I got down to the Bowl at about 10:15 with the
microphones and the other equipment, I was about
half-way there when, in front of Frandsen Hu¬
manities, I met a large crowd of persons going in
the opposite direction. That is, they were going
toward the Jot Travis Student Union lounge—in
that direction. So, rather than go through with
the original non-violent, peaceful—separate,
even—demonstration down in the Bowl, the or¬
ganizers: Tommy Myers, [Dan] Clayton, [Dave]
Slemmons, and myself deposited the electronic
equipment down at my office in Frandsen Hu¬
manities. We joined the protest group, the march¬
ers, who, when we caught up with them, were to
the left of the library in that alley between the
library and whatever that dorm is. And when we
got there, some of them (I guess it was the entire
group) had stopped whatever car that was. I
couldn’t tell which car it was; they seemed to be
all soldiers in there.

But in the charge that Paul Adamian was ac¬
cused of, the charge is that he stopped the

FRED MAHER

257

governor’s car. Now. I didn’t see the governor in
there, so I don’t know if it was the governor’s car
or not. In the following day’s Reno newspaper it
said the governor’s car wasn’t stopped, that it
went right on, and it was another car where the
generals were. (Was there something else about
that? Oh, yes, there was something about that.)
When I got there, the car had been stopped for a
few moments; I don’t know how long. And one
of the guys in the peace group, Tommy Myers,
climbed up on top of the car, and he was telling
the persons who were crowded all around the car
to skip the car, let it go, because it’s more impor¬
tant to go for the football field.

However, one of the generals (or colonel, I
don’t know what his rank was) got out of the car
and made what almost was a horrible mistake.
He physically grabbed Tommy and pulled him
off the car, insisting that Tommy and the others
let the cai' go on. Tommy, I’m positive, would
have belted him back, [laughter] would have
physically returned the physical assault on this
person, except that Dr. Robert Harvey stepped in
between the two, and the only thing that came of
that then was a loud shouting match: the military
guy telling Tommy, “I demand that you let this
car go on,” and Tommy saying, “I’m not a pri¬
vate in your army,” and that kind of thing and got
rather silly. But, in any event, then the marchers
decided that they wanted to go to the football
field, and if the car wanted to go, fine. So they
did.

From there we decided to just march over to
the football field, and there was no longer any
decision-making person or even guru person. The
peace movement had sort of lost control of its
original planned activity, and we decided that we
would just flow along with it, go with it and feel
our way along and do our best to keep the thing
peaceful and non-violent. On the way to the foot¬
ball field a couple of persons in the front of the
group suggested that when we got there, we’d
walk around the track two or three times in the
form of a march and then march into the stands,
and that was done. And I don’t know who started
that idea, but we wound up doing that.

We walked around the track two or three
times, and then there was a lot of discussion at
the front about where to sit: on the opposite side
of the football field from where the rest of the
audience was, or to sit in the same place there
where President Miller and the others were. And
while the persons were hassling back and forth,
whoever was at the front of the line just decided
to go right up into the stands where the rest of the
audience was. And that’s how that turned out.

Then, as each person got up to speak, the pro¬
testors would shout and make catcalls and holler,
and there was a little singing of television songs
that I don’t know about, because I hadn’t heard
them before. Every time someone would say in a
microphone, “ROTC,” a group of the protestors
would sing a little ditty about Mickey Mouse, “M-
I-C-K-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E,” which I didn’t know
about.

OK, after shouting and hollering down at the
speakers for awhile, President Miller got up and
asked the protestors to please let the ceremony
proceed and stop being so discourteous. I’m not
sure those were his exact words. However, the
persons in the stands shouted and applauded while
he was trying to talk, so that he couldn’t talk,
couldn’t make himself heard for two or three
minutes. And then I got up and asked the protest¬
ors to please knock it off for a couple of minutes
and see what Miller had to say. And they quieted
down, and we heard what he had to say—a re¬
quest to be more respectful of the proceedings—
and the protestors were for awhile.

After fifteen or twenty minutes some persons
decided it would be a more effective way to in¬
fluence the organization by leaving the stands and
going down on the football field, where the ROTC
drill team was going through its movements to
demonstrate to the audience how well they’d
learned then - marches. And it started out with a
handful of people. Eventually, all the protestors
went down there.

Those of us who organized the thing origi¬
nally and who had been in the peace group for a
long time (and some teachers who were there—
Harvey and Hulse are two I know by name—but

258

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

I don’t know all the other guys by name) reluc¬
tantly went down there because we saw that some
responsible person should try to prevent any clash
between the protestors and the ROTC guys, be¬
cause they had bayonets and stuff. So, we went
down on the field. I was about the last one to
leave the stands, in fact. We went down to the
field and tried to get the protestors to sit down on
the lawn, and that was effective for a little while,
but they were restless and wanted to do some¬
thing, I imagine, more dramatic.

Ultimately, the campus patrolman that was
down there, Doug Sherman, and Dr. Harvey, Ben
Hazard, and I, and some of the more mature per¬
sons who were opposed to that war in Vietnam,
put ourselves between the protestors and the
ROTC drill team so that we could make sure that
there wouldn’t be a clash. There were a couple
of close calls down there, but fortunately—good
luck—nothing came of it. They finished their
drill, the thing ended, and then they started. The
ROTC marched around the football field once
with the peace group following them and marched
out the gates of the football field and down to¬
ward that parking lot—I don’t know what the
name of it is; it’s a big parking lot that you come
to before you get to the gym—and the protestors
were marching in the same march right on the
end of the line.

At that point, the ROTC guys disbanded, and
the peace group continued from there back to the
Manzanita Bowl. There were three or four at¬
tempts at speeches to discuss and analyze what
had occurred, but they pretty much fell apart, and
I took the microphone and mentioned that that’s
all. In the event of some other peace group activ¬
ity in the future, we’d appreciate the same per¬
sons showing up and acting as peacefully and non-
violently as they had that time. And that was the
end of that.

What do you think should have been the reaction
there of the ROTC and the demonstrators and
the university administration ?

Good. I’m glad I didn’t skip that one—you
reminded me that it’s there. It seems to me that in

light of the obvious unhappiness across the na¬
tion, mainly on college campuses (but not neces¬
sarily only there), over Cambodia and the Kent
State killing of those four kids by National
Guardsmen, the intelligent thing to do for the
administration of this university regarding
Governor’s Day was to cancel it. They didn’t do
it. It was an awful mistake. I think it would have
been a very intelligent move on the paid of who¬
ever is responsible for setting up Governor’s Day.
They couldn’t possibly have deferred it, post¬
poned it? At the time when student passions were
extremely high—high, or whatever term—it was
a mistake to have continued with a military cer¬
emony on a college campus any place in America.

The reaction of ROTC guys down on the field
was commendable. They really took care of them¬
selves like mature, responsible persons. I know
several guys in ROTC, and one of them, Jim West,
was on the field during all that, and he explained
to me that the ROTC guys on the field felt pretty
much as we did: they were opposed to the war in
Vietnam, to expansion into Cambodia, and they
were very unhappy about the Kent State thing.
They sympathized with us, but they were in a po¬
sition of not being able to do much about it, and
that there was a pretty big split among the cadets.
There are about half totally opposed to what was
going on and half partially, and the Governor’s
Day ceremony divided and clarified for the ROTC
cadets how they felt. No longer were they neu¬
tral: they were either for or against, and it turned
out to be about half and half. That takes care of
ROTC.

Since the demonstration was peaceful, non¬
violent, and was, I think, an intelligent public dis¬
play of unhappiness about a horrendous war that’s
going on, the demonstrators acted fine. They acted
in a tradition that this country was born on. And
they acted opposite to the way persons acted in
Germany in the 1930s when they should have
been doing something resisting fascism, instead
of passively sitting back and letting it happen.
The persons in this country right now who are
taking a peaceful, non-violent method of protest
about the atrocities and the napaiming that is go¬
ing on in a foreign country where we have no

FRED MAHER

259

business, I think, arc acting in a very humane and
intelligent manner and in a manner that perhaps
will have some influence on the course of Ameri¬
can history. Is there another one?

Yes, very good. What was your reaction to the
violence that followed Governor’s Day—the fire
bombings?

OK, good. I'm a pacifist; I'm against violence
of all kinds. I'm opposed to destruction; I'm in
favor of creation. I'm opposed to death and in
favor of life. I'm opposed to hatred and in favor
of love. So, I do not dig hearing about the bomb¬
ing of the ROTC building. But it only mildly both¬
ered me because there was no chance of anyone
getting hurt—it was just damage to property.
However, when I heard about the bombing of the
Hobbit Hole, which happened at a time when four
(I believe there were four) persons were inside
sleeping, and a person threw a bomb in there
knowing that there were persons in there at the
time, I was horrified and shocked that somebody
would do that.

I would really like to see caught whoever
bombed the Hobbit Hole and the ROTC build¬
ing, too. I would guess it’s probably the same
person, but who knows? If there’s any way that
any guys in the peace group knew, we would have
cooperated with the FBI. We talked to them, those
of us who were interviewed by them, and offered
our assistance in any way, but there’s not any¬
thing we can do right now. And they’ve been in¬
vestigating. They said they’d keep in touch.

What category of participants—the students, fac¬
ulty, or outsiders—do you think was most impor¬
tant in fomenting violence on the campus?

Let’s see. Well, I’m not sure I can do a good
job on this question, because I don’t think there
was any violence on the campus other than a
couple hundred dollars worth of damage to a
building, the ROTC building, and the Hobbit
House. I don’t know. If that’s considered cam¬
pus, yes, that’s a different story. What category
of participant? It certainly wasn’t faculty. I doubt

if it was student. So, I guess I’m left with the
other choice of outsider.

I know that there were four or five crazies
around here, because I pointed them out to the
dean and Edd [Miller] and Sam Basta and those
guys (well, I don’t know what their jobs are—
they’re administrative persons). They said that
they also had been observing them and keeping
their eye on them, and I pointed them out to the
campus police. And I suspect, without any good
solid foundation for it, that those four or five
crazies were the ones responsible for the bomb¬
ings. Everyone I know in the peace group dis¬
claims anything about it, so I would guess it’s
those four or five. That’s the end of that.

What actions do you think were most effective in
preventing violence or cooling off the situation
after the fire bombings?

The most efficacious actions of all in pre¬
venting more violence and in cooling off the situ¬
ations were actions such as mine. When inter¬
viewed by newspaper reporters, I’d say, “No com¬
ment,” and I refused, at the rate of about ten a
day, requests from the TV and the radio. I think
that’s what more persons should have done. Per¬
sons such as Slattery, for instance, would be one
example. Mr. Agnew would be another example.
And some of these persons in the peace group,
too, who felt that we should have been more ac¬
tive. But I don’t really see it as an unfortunate
demonstration, except for the physical bombing
of ROTC and the Hobbit House. Other than that,
there wasn’t any violence. I think at the football
field, appropriate terms might be discourtesy,
impoliteness, rudeness, but there wasn’t violence
or any physical encounters. The demonstrators
probably should be condemned for being impo¬
lite, discourteous, rude, if those are censorious
actions.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image with outsiders?

Well, these particular events seem to affect
the university’s image with outsiders—that is.

260

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

non-student, faculty, or staff in Reno or in all of
Nevada. They seem to think that the university
was bombed, blew up, shut down, and came to a
staggering halt, which has no basis in truth or
fact at all. Anyone who’s on campus knows bet¬
ter.

Given the fact that this is a political year, the
mean effect seems to be that some persons down¬
town are using the university, and they’re also
using me, as a political football to help get them¬
selves elected. Outsiders? I guess the regents are
outsiders. They’re acting as bad-tempered old
men, and their grandfather image of kindly, pa¬
ternal human beings has gone down the drain
entirely since Governor’s Day. And students are
well aware now that these tiresome fellows are
attempting to prohibit any form of protest. They
seem to feel that, “If you don’t like it, keep quiet.”

What can the university do to focus public opin¬
ion? What functions does the un iversity have in
focusing public opinion ?

Oh, I think the university ought to just have
persons here acting as individuals saying what
they want about the war or about anything else. I
believe that there are attempts being made at the
Board of Regents meeting this week, and I know
during the summer, to stifle the right of protest
and dissent on campus and I think endangering
the constitutionally time-honored right of free¬
dom of speech. So the university, I think, ought
to act not as an entire group having someone speak
for the university, though I do admire Kingman
Brewster, the president of Yale, who came out
publicly in opposition to the war in Vietnam.

I think it should be an individual gesture of,
“I say what I think. You and everyone else, any¬
one who has anything to say about war or racism
or whatever they want to talk about, ought to
speak out.” Given the facts of the second half of
the twentieth century, I think the greatest crime
is silence, making believe that everything is fine.
And if not now, it will be pretty soon if we just
keep quiet and sit back passively, unconcerned.

Do you think issues of academic freedom are in¬
volved in participating in a demonstration ?

Well, since I’ve just been fired, yes. It seems
to me that’s the way my status with the univer¬
sity reads now. All the other persons in the En¬
glish Department (including the person who a lot
was written about in the paper, Paul Adamian)
got their contracts for next year, a contract which
I signed and submitted in good faith before
Governor’s Day. However, it was not returned in
good faith, and since I don’t have it back now, I
guess I don’t have a job for the forthcoming aca¬
demic year. And I would say, that yes, academic
freedom, I would think, has been violated here
and that possibly I’m being used as a good ex¬
ample to be held up to other members of the fac¬
ulty here of what will happen if they become in¬
volved in participation in demonstrations.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally, or should they be trying to influence gov¬
ernmental policy?

I think students and faculty, before being stu¬
dents and faculty, are human beings. And as hu¬
man beings, they should be concerned about is¬
sues that concern them and their fellow men. And
one way of being effective politically—I think
it’s the best one—is to work through the elec¬
toral system: try to get congressmen, senators,
mayors, treasurers, or anyone elected who will
publicly come out and take stands that are com¬
parable, or similar to those of a person involved
in peace, antiwar activities. So through the elec¬
toral process, I think, is the most effective way.

Should they attempt? Sure, students and fac¬
ulty should attempt to influence political or gov¬
ernmental policies. Somebody’s got to try to in¬
fluence the persons who are in power in this coun¬
try, other than those who are influencing them
now: that is the generals and admirals and colo¬
nels and those people. If we want to survive as a
nation, I think it’s incumbent upon each of us to
remember that it’s not possible to remain passive

FRED MAHER

261

and neutral now, because by remaining passive,
by remaining neutral, and by keeping quiet, you’re
supporting the generals. That’s the way I see it.

Where is the peace movement here headed now?

I think that in the coming school year the
peace movement may be without me, since I’ve
been fired. I and Tommy and the guys who have
organized the peace group activities on this cam¬
pus have been adamantly opposed to any kind of
violence, and we’re pacific persons. We’ve all
been either subtly or blatantly encouraged to leave
the campus in Reno, Nevada. And I think there’s
a very real danger that some less mature, more
crazy persons will be running whatever peace
group activities will be on this campus next year,
and there’s a greater possibility of some form of
unpleasant, unfortunate action, perhaps even vio¬
lence against buildings or lock-ins. The things
that young, impressionable students read about
going on in other areas may be done here.

What other comments would you like to make
about this whole situation?

I should have thought about this before I came
in here, but I didn’t, so I’ll just find my own thing,
reiterate something I mentioned earlier: that I’m
a pacific person, a peaceful guy. I’m opposed to
violence of any kind. I don’t even think it’s right
for parents to hit their babies; the only reason
they can get away with it is because they’re big¬
ger than them and stronger than them. Maybe they
ought to try it when those babies are twenty-eight
years old and see what happens. I mean, if they’re
committed to teaching their child that sort of
thing, perhaps the other hand would come back
on them later on in life.

I guess the comment I want to make mainly
is that I think all men of good will in this country
or any other, and at this time or any other time,
are (to repeat something I said earlier) opposed
to destruction and in favor of construction or cre¬
ation. As far as possible they’re opposed to death.

in favor of life, and opposed to hatred, in favor
of love.

Bob Malone

June 1, 1970

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Well, I assume that you’re gathering facts
regarding the recent disruptions that occurred on
Governor’s Day. [Note: Bob Malone was chief
of university police in 1970.]

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to go into Cambodia ?

Well, I can see the reasoning behind it, based
on my military service myself. I’m sure that his
reasoning was based on intelligence information
that was gathered that this was the right time to
go into Cambodia, in an attempt to destroy a lot
of military supplies and destroy the enemy’s . . .
probably the main supply route into Vietnam.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

Well, I think that the war itself is getting very,
very upsetting to most people. And it just so hap¬

pened that at that time, the decision made to go
into Cambodia caused even more problems with
the students around the nation, as well as the
shootings that occurred at Kent State University.
This was a culmination of several reasons.

You want to say any more on that?

No. I think I answered it probably as to the
reasoning: a culmination of things, no one factor.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodia decision?

In which respect, now?

Well, I was thinking about the demonstrations that
took place, the Kent State affair, the things that
seemed to affect people here.

Well, I deplore the use of violence—the burn¬
ing of buildings, the disruption of records, de¬
struction of computer centers, and such as this. I
feel that there is no place in the American soci¬
ety for action such as this, and those persons who
were responsible for destruction of buildings,
property, computer centers, and such should be

264

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

prosecuted. I just can’t see the reasoning behind
their thinking that the destruction justifies the
means.

Regarding the Governor’s Day activities here at
our campus now, what did you think of the ar¬
rangements for the observances?

The arrangements for .... Would you go into
that a little more so I understand this?

Well, some people have mentioned the logistical
problems of getting people from one place to an¬
other. Some people have men tioned the dismissal
of classes as one of the arrangements made. Some
people have mentioned the emphasis on the mili¬
tary as opposed to a broader spectrum of activi¬
ties and arrangements.

Well, I can’t see hardly how any other ar¬
rangement could be made as far as picking up the
honored guest, unless you were to have picked
him up off of Virginia Street. There, again, I don’t
see any reason why it should not have gone off
peacefully. There was no reason for the students
to disrupt this. I mean, once they went beyond
the point of a peaceful march, they disrupted and
infringed upon the rights of others, because this
is a part of an American university. I mean, why
should they interrupt, or why should they disrupt?
A peaceful demonstration everyone is entitled to,
especially on universities. You have that right to
disagree. You have the right to protest peacefully.
But when it comes to disrupting the affairs and
infringing upon the rights of others, I feel that no
longer do the protesters have that right.

Yes. Then, what about your feeling toward par¬
ticipation in these demonstrations and obser¬
vances?

I have nothing against those persons who
participate in a peaceful demonstration. I feel that
the leaders, the ones who organized this particu¬
lar protest march, did not have their people un¬
der as good of control as they should have. There
may have been some antagonism and insistence

upon disrupting this. I feel that had it not been a
disruptive-type demonstration, it would have cer¬
tainly had a place in the university community.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstrations and of the observances, too?

Oh, I think probably from the protestors’
point of view, the most important part of it was
the actual disruption of events on the field when
the awards and ceremonies were being given out.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various people involved here—the ROTC,
the demonstrators, the university administra¬
tion—to the conflict that developed?

Well, I don’t see hardly how we could have
taken any other position than what we did under
the circumstances that day. I’m sure that no one
was actually anticipating an out-and-out, total
disruption of Governor’s Day. It’s something that
had never occurred in the history of the Univer¬
sity of Nevada.

We knew that there was supposed to be a
march. However, the marchers had informed me
that they were merely going to march to the sta¬
dium and that they would immediately leave af¬
ter proving their point and making their point by
marching to the stadium. I believe that had they
stuck hard to this rule, they would have probably
been recognized and accepted, and as far as the
public is concerned, they would have had a lot
more sympathy from the public. But where they
entered into the disruptive type of behavior and
creating embarrassment upon the administration
and the governor and the officials and especially
Mrs. Wisham, why, they no longer have the sup¬
port of anyone, or very few people in the state of
Nevada.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day?

Well, it was something that I kept getting ru¬
mors that this perhaps may occur. There possibly
would be a bombing or the ROTC building might

BOB MALONE

265

perhaps be bombed. And all that we could do was
to take the necessary precautions in an attempt to
keep it to a minimum. I don’t agree with the bomb¬
ings of either the ROTC or the bombing of the
Hobbit House. I feel that this has no place in a
university community.

What category of participant — students, faculty,
or outsiders—do you think was most important
in causing the violence that erupted?

Oh, I think the outsiders certainly didn’t have
anything to lose one way or the other. The more
disruptive that the non-students could be, the more
they considered their mission accomplished. The
percentage of students involved in the actual dis¬
ruption is a very, very small percentage, as well
as the small percentage of faculty members par¬
ticipating.

So do you think that outsiders were important?

Well, I think that they no doubt played a part
in it, but I think that our own faculty and students
were just as responsible. It would be totally im¬
possible for four or five outsiders to create such
a disruptive-type demonstration as we had with¬
out the assistance and cooperation of those people
leading the groups. Then they were our own stu¬
dents and our own faculty members.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence or in cooling off the
situation ?

Well, I think that the bombing of the ROTC
building in the eyes of most students was de¬
plored. They felt that this was totally out of order
and would serve no purpose other than to cause
more problems for the university, the adminis¬
tration, and the students. I think getting the con¬
cerned faculty members, both conservative and
perhaps liberal faculty members, working with
the students and meeting with them and discuss¬
ing it possibly deterred further violence. Of
course, I feel that our intensification of the patrol
and the fact that all the students knew that police

were available and that we had reached a point
where we had no choice but to take police action
in the future, this also perhaps may have had some
deterrence.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image with the community at large?

Well, right now, from the people that I have
talked to (which have been quite a few, both in
the business field as well as the public employ¬
ment outside the community), I feel that this cer¬
tainly hurt the image of the university. It very
definitely will have effects for some time to come
on the university by their actions and by the em¬
barrassing situation that did occur on Governor’s
Day.

What function should the university have in fo¬
cusing public opinion?

Well, I don’t see any reason why the univer¬
sity cannot. Not the university itself, but mem¬
bers of the university community certainly have
a right to their own opinion and their own ideas
as to what is right and what is not right. I don’t
believe that they should take advantage of their
classrooms to project these ideas to their students.
I don’t see any reason for it. If they have a con¬
tract to teach a given subject, I believe that they
should teach that subject. And if they’re going to
involve themselves in the student protest and stu¬
dents demonstrations, it should be on their own
time at no expense to the university.

Do you feel that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participating in demonstrations?

Well, I think one would have to define aca¬
demic freedom first, which is very difficult. To
some profs, academic freedom means complete
freedom to express and make any statements that
might be to their own interest or to the interests
of the students in their class. However, I still feel
that they have an obligation to the university first
and foremost to teach the subject that they are
contracted for. If they choose to disagree and take

266

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

issue with the administration, they should do so
through the proper channels.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally, or should they try to effect governmental
change?

I think if students and faculty desire to be
effective politically, they will have far better ef¬
fect doing it in a peaceful-type situation with pe¬
titions, names on petitions, showing the interest,
contacting their respective legislators to let them
know their feelings on this. I don’t think that vio¬
lence is an answer.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed?

Well, it’s rather difficult to say. Now that
school is out, we really won’t have any idea until
fall as to how many people that will be returning
will be actively involved in the peace movement.
I would say at the present time there will be a
very small percentage of active participants in
the peace movement this fall.

What other comments would you like to make
about the situation here?

Well, my only comment, I suppose, would
be that the university and perhaps myself may
have come under criticism for not taking a more
firm position on the particular day of Governor’s
Day and the events leading up to the disruption.
However, I still feel that the approach that I took,
by not calling in a massive amount of police and
arresting on the spot, certainly did help to lessen
the chance for violence. However, I do think that
in the future any group that is going to protest or
march should be advised as to what they can ex¬
pect from the administration and from the police
itself. It should be thoroughly explained to them
that we have a policy pertaining to peaceful dem¬
onstrations and peaceful marches. Then once they
go beyond the point of where it’s no longer peace¬
ful and becomes disruptive, at that point it should

be conveyed to them that this will not be toler¬
ated.

Yes, that’s very good.

John P. Marschall

June 7, 1970

For the record, if you ’ll say your name and your
residence and your position.

OK. I’m John P. Marschall. I am a part-time
faculty member at the University of Nevada and
director of the Center for Religion and Life.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Probably because I'm deeply involved and
deeply interested in student campus affairs, and I
tty to exercise some kind of conciliatory role in
differing opinions and that sort of thing.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia with troops?

My first reaction was genuine disappointment
in the way in which it was done. I've always been
a little concerned, and as an historian, I’ve been
very much concerned about the way in which the
president, the Congress, and the judiciary exer¬
cise their roles and attempt to maintain revenue
with the principle of separation of powers. Ever
since our involvement in Korea, which was very

much within my own lifetime. I’ve been inter¬
ested in the kinds of powers that have been given
to the presidency—emergency powers during
wartime, for example, World War I, World War
II, and Wilson and Roosevelt—and some of those
emergency powers continuing over into peace¬
time that would allow a president to send troops
into a foreign country without the congressional
permission. In an age of instant communication,
and with the sophisticated intelligence operations
that are going out all around the world, that it
may be necessary to give a single man or a small
coterie of men powers to deal with national emer¬
gencies whereby they don’t have to go to Con¬
gress, let us say. But I have concern about that.
You know, I fear sometimes that the democratic
process breaks down.

So that was my main concern. Yes, I know
enough about military history to know that some¬
times a retreat is one of the most difficult maneu¬
vers you can attempt. And it sometimes means,
according to Clauswitz and others, that you’ve
got to make forays into the enemy country so that
you have more room to retreat. So I could under¬
stand a movement into Cambodia as a necessary
part of reheat action. But when I saw members
of the president’s staff. Congress, who I think may
be a little bit more in touch with facts than I am.

268

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

beginning to question the president’s judgment,
my own concern about the kinds of powers that
the president has and his judgmental powers—
those questions were raised in my mind. So if I
were to express an emotion, I suppose I would be
largely concerned about what sending troops into
Cambodia meant for the future—the future of the
presidency, the future of how people in this coun¬
try can decide which way we want to move, and
what are they going to say about that.

Yes, that’s good. In what way do you think the
Cambodia decision was related to what happened
next on our campus?

On Governor’s Day, you mean?

Well, what happened next on our campus.

What happened next was that, I think, a lot
of people read the newspapers, and a lot of people
picked up information through television and ra¬
dio about what was being done on other cam¬
puses. I think that here at the University of Ne¬
vada we’ve been in a certain sense living on bor¬
rowed time or perhaps purchased time. In a lot of
ways there’s a time phase between what happens
on this campus and what happens on other cam¬
puses. Things happen here after they happen other
places, which perhaps I can get to later when
you’re asking about those other questions about
leadership.

I think that nationally, we’re involved in a
very deep, transitional, cultural struggle. There
is so much instant information available to so
many people, especially young people who have
lived on television, and they’re able to absorb a
lot more information than you and I perhaps are.
I’m thirty-six, and I wasn’t raised on television. I
think the awareness of a lot of young people of
what’s happening worldwide is much more sen¬
sitive than mine was at the same age. I know that
I was not at all concerned about international af¬
fairs and national affairs when I was in college.
We were called the silent generation, the apathetic
generation. And I think that some of our parents
look nostalgically at some activity overseas, when

students were concerned about politics. Of course,
that may have gotten out of hand since.

In any case, I think that what happened in
Cambodia created a national stir that people on
this campus responded to, but not just because of
the international situation. I think there was a lot
of pent-up hostility here for a lot of small, pica¬
yune reasons, whether it had to do with food or
housing, discrimination, and off-campus housing
or programs for minority groups, or teacher-stu¬
dent evaluations. There were a number of other
things in the wind. At that particular' time in a
student’s life—that is, the spring of the year—
there is a tendency to not be too interested in scho¬
lastic things. There are some students who already
see the sign on the wall that they may not gradu¬
ate. And there were other students and faculty
members, I think, who were genuinely concerned
about the kind of things that I express concern
about: Which way are we moving internationally
and nationally?

This whole combination of events, I think,
led to a kind of crisis situation that was below
the surface before the president even announced
his decision on Cambodia. The fact that we were
in Southeast Asia, and all these other small things
that I mentioned, led to a lot of discontent here
on campus.

There were certain people that were focused
out for attention, one of them being the presi¬
dent. And there were a number of events planned.
The president intended to meet with a group of
students and to confront them personally. It was
my belief that this would have been a very dan¬
gerous thing to do, in view of what I understood
the crisis on the campus to be—below the sur¬
face, as it was. I felt it was important to dilute the
hostility toward the president in some way and
to, therefore, involve more faculty and staff
people to heai' these student demands, ah of them,
whatever they had to do with—peace or academ¬
ics or housing or whatever. That led to two major
meetings held over at Jot Travis Union, in which
an attempt was made to get students, faculty, ad¬
ministrators at least talking together in a serious
and candid way about what their grievances were.

JOHN P. MARSCHALL

269

So in the end I'm kind of moving away from
a direct response to your question. You asked,
“How was Cambodia involved?” I think periph¬
erally. It was a part of it, but I don’t think that
was the whole story.

And what was your reaction to events away from
here that were related to the Cambodia affair?

Like the Kent State . . . ?

Like the Kent State or the other demonstrations
that took place ?

Well, demonstrations are one thing, and what
happened at Kent State is something altogether
different, I think. I have really strong, positive
feelings about the freedom that we should have
to demonstrate in a nonviolent way what our be¬
liefs may be, and protest decisions that are made
at higher levels. But, again, this protest, I think,
has to be within the bounds of decency and re¬
spectability. But I think it can be allowed.

And I think one has to understand the rheto¬
ric of demonstration and a rhetoric of protest.
There arc certain groups of students, faculty, citi¬
zens of this country that use a kind of language
that sounds very violent. It’s a kind of exagger¬
ated language. It involves a lot of obscenity some¬
times, and sometimes it involves strong words—
words with high emotive content (that’s what I
mean to say). I think it’s important to listen to the
anger behind that rhetoric. Instead of healing only
the rhetoric, hearing only the words, and respond¬
ing only to those, I think it’s important for re¬
sponsible people and thoughtful people to sit back
and say, “Well, now wait a minute. There’s a lot
of anger there. Let’s see if we can’t deal with that
hostility and find out what some of the reasons
are for it,” instead of responding in an unthink¬
ing way.

So I was frankly horrified at the response on
the part of the National Guard, or whoever the
officers were, to fire into a crowd of students. I
know there’s a difference between police law and
military law, but I think it’s a fundamental prin¬

ciple of morality that one uses only enough force
in order to repel aggression. And I think that in
the case of the Kent State activities, the National
Guard used more force than was necessary. If
someone is beating at my door or is even Lying
to get to me. I’d like to think I could kick him in
the leg, if that’s enough to get him out of the way.
If he throws a stone at me, well, first I’ll duck,
and I’ll try to find some other way. But I don’t
think it’s justifiable for me to kill someone who
throws a stone at me. On the other hand, I recog¬
nize that there was panic on both sides. But, any¬
way, my frank reaction to it all was absolute
horrification. (That’s my own coined word, I
guess.)

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangements
made for the observance of Governor’s Day?

I don’t know very much about the arrange¬
ments, or how they were made. I know that it
was planned. It’s been a planned annual event
for many years. But I believe that there were a lot
of other X-factors that should have been taken
into consideration, which were not—namely, the
temper of the nation and this campus at that time,
which I don’t think was taken very seriously.

Another thing is that I think there’s some¬
thing a little incongruous about Governor’s Day
being a largely military observance. The gover¬
nor is a civilian. The governor is a man who rep¬
resents all the people in the state. My understand¬
ing of Governor’s Day (and I may be wrong here)
is that it’s a day in which the university honored
the governor, in which the governor pays his own
respects to the university community. And I would
like to see an observance that is more in keeping
with what a university is all about and not merely,
you know, a military day. We could use that kind
of thing, perhaps, for Memorial Day or Flag Day
or Independence Day. But for Governor’s Day, it
seemed to me a little incongruous to make it an
ROTC demonstration.

To summarize, in view of the national tem¬
per, the national climate, the temper on this cam-

270

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

pus, and what a Governor’s Day should be all
about, I think that the arrangements might have
been different. On many campuses across the
country, and on many military bases, the same
kinds of observances were canceled, and it would
have appeared that that was a prudent thing to
do.

One other thing I think might have been
done . . . and I’m talking now only about the ar¬
rangements made by administrators. I think on
the part of the students, they demanded in a mat¬
ter of twenty-four hours that there be a meeting
in Manzanita Bowl. And it’s this kind of twenty-
four-hour strategy that I just don’t think works
very well. I don’t think it works well whether
you’re an administrator or a student, whether
you’re responding to crisis, or whether you’re a
faculty or a student or a staff member.

I think it would have been fortunate if the
same kind of arrangements could have been made
this year as were made last year, when the presi¬
dent was able to sit down and talk to student lead¬
ers and, if I’m not mistaken, encourage students
to attend one rally or the other. As a result of
poor planning, the rally in Manzanita Bowl turned
out to be kind of a bust, from what I understand.
I was not there. And someone suggested that they
all march to the Mackay Stadium, and that’s what
precipitated the events that were so widely pub¬
licized.

What was your reaction to the demonstration ?

It depends on what paid of the demonstration
you’re talking about. Are you talking about the
march over to Mackay Stadium? Are you talking
about those instances during the march where
someone sat down in front of the governor’s car
or there was a little bit of pushing outside there
in the parking lot? Or are you talking about what
was going on inside Mackay Stadium? You know,
you have to be specific to me.

Well, I would say anything that. . . any one of
these things that you felt a reaction to; it seems
to me that the demonstration ought to be rather
broadly defined.

My reaction to what I heard about it was
mixed, I think. I did not see it. As a matter of
fact, I was in a history faculty meeting. I think
the demonstration was poorly planned, very
poorly planned. I think that perhaps the most pow¬
erful thing that could have been done by people
who wanted to say something strong about
Governor’s Day would have been to take a cam¬
era, have one person walk to the other side of
Mackay Stadium, and take a picture of the huge,
huge throng of people that turned out to witness
the Governor’s Day observances.

There was really a handful of people there.
And I think that set it off; that could have set it
off. So my reaction, generally, I think, to both the
demonstration and to the observances was they
were both kind of irrelevant. They were both
badly planned, badly conceived, and neither of
them came off very well—and created a tremen¬
dous amount of reaction both on campus and off
campus.

You ’ ve said that you didn’t think it was neces¬
sary to participate in any of the demonstrations —
that was one of the questions—any of the
Governor’s Day activities or demonstration ?

No. I had what I felt was a prior commitment
to a history faculty meeting.

Yes, fine. What did you feel was the most effec¬
tive part of the demonstration or the Governor’s
Day observance ?

The most effective paid of the Governor’s Day
observance, I think, was the way in which the
ROTC members held themselves in check under
some provocative language—or from what I heard
was provocative language, or just the fact that
there were people trying to upset the lines of regi¬
mentation. I’ve had military training myself, and
I know that that can be very exasperating and very
annoying. And I think that that part of the obser¬
vance—from what I heard took place—was the
most powerful.

As far as the most effective paid of the dem¬
onstration was concerned (from what I heard),

JOHN P. MARSCHALL

271

again I think it would be the number of people
who were involved and then the kinds of people
who were involved. It wasn’t just a group of wide-
eyed, fanatic, flaming, liberal students or weath¬
ermen or outsiders. It was a group of moderate as
well as more liberal faculty people. A lot of more
conservative people went to keep order. I think
there was genuine concern on this campus and
by a wide variety of people for what was happen¬
ing over there and what that meant to this cam¬
pus. I think if it had been ten students, it obvi¬
ously wouldn’t have been as effective. So I think
that the numbers and kinds of people who were
involved in the demonstration was the most ef¬
fective side of it.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various people involved up there at the sta¬
dium—the ROTC, the demonstrators, and the
university administration—to the conflict that
developed there at the stadium?

Well, from what I heard, I understand that
President Miller did say, did ask for, did request
some kind of quiet at one point from demonstra¬
tors. And my understanding is that he only had to
say that once; I may be wrong about that. I think
that was an appropriate thing to do. I believe in
free speech. I believe in letting other people ex¬
ercise their rights, and that I can’t exercise my
rights in a totally free way so that they conflict
with the rights of others. So I think that was cer¬
tainly one thing that had to be done.

I really don’t know. Not having been there
and not having been an eyewitness, it’s hard for
me to say. You know. I’d have to be theorizing,
and I really don’t know if it’s appropriate for an
historian to be theorizing. I think I could respond
to that if I had been a witness to it.

OK. What was your reaction to the violence that
followed Governor’s Day—the fire bombing?

Again, my response—my own internal re¬
sponse—was anger at the stupidity: stupidity at
a lot of different levels, stupidity on the part of
people who don’t know how to really develop

strategy and don’t really know how to work out a
plan, except on the basis of a hot emotion at the
moment.

This is where I think I could say something
about leadership. I really think we have a leader¬
ship vacuum here on this campus that gets filled
with twenty-four-hour strategists, whether they
be students or faculty members or even the ad¬
ministration, which I feel unfortunately responds
to crises rather than provides leadership, think¬
ing way ahead of everybody. I think, for example,
that in matters of student affairs that we ought to
have leaders who are so deeply in touch with stu¬
dents and student problems and student anxieties,
hopes, and aspirations that they’re working with
students to help them work out solutions to their
problems way before the crisis situation emerges
or arises. So I think there’s a leadership vacuum
among the students, within the student body,
which is fertile ground for demagogues, for out¬
side agitators, if you will—although I don’t think
we have very many of them.

And there’s the leadership gap also within
the administration. I think that the university has
grown so quickly in some ways, but it’s still be¬
ing run as though it were a junior college—like
you can know everybody. You could know ev¬
erybody when there were 700 students here just
a few years ago, but now we have 7,200. And it
requires a lot of creative methods and a great sen¬
sitivity to changing student roles and the image
that they see of themselves as students. For ex¬
ample, in my own day—when I was a student,
that is—I looked upon myself as a person who
should be concerned only with what I was taught
in the classroom or only with the material that I
was taught in the classroom. And I can remem¬
ber someone saying, “Don’t ever let your book
learning get in the way of your education.” I’m
beginning to understand that there are a lot of
students today who’ve taken that very seriously,
that education is a much broader thing than just
book learning. And they’re really trying to be
concerned about a lot of things they’re not get¬
ting in the classroom. I think that’s a little bit off
track, but that’s, I guess, paid of my answer to
your question.

272

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Yes, that’s good. What category of participant in
all of these various affairs—the students, the fac¬
ulty, or outsiders—do you feel was most impor¬
tant in fomenting violence on the campus?

Violence after Governor’s Day? I’ve got re¬
ally strong hunches on this, that it could be ... .
The most active, I would say, was probably a
group of four or five non-students, some of them
not even of college age—I mean, older than col¬
lege age—who took advantage of a situation
where there really wasn’t any strong leadership.
They were looking for action. Now, I’m talking
about some young people. I think the reaction on
the part of certain townspeople who are now stu¬
dents was equally violent. So I would say they
were the most active in a certain way. I’d have to
qualify that, also.

If you talk about importance, I guess I’d have
to say that students and faculty were the most
important insofar as they were not prepared very
well for what was going on around the country.
They were responding too quickly, responding
too indecisively, too emotionally, and not really
sitting down to work out a kind of reasonable
strategy. So I suppose, in terms of importance, I
think that we members of the university commu¬
nity were probably most at fault—but that wasn’t
the question. I don’t want to put fault anywhere,
but I think that partly answers your question.

Yes. Were the outsiders important in fomenting
violence ?

Yes, I think they were probably most active.
And I think that it was only, well, within one day
after the first amount of violence, the fire bomb¬
ing of Hartman Hall, when it became clear to stu¬
dents who had an interest in this university—and
I'm talking now about liberals as well as conser¬
vatives—that they really did not want to accept
into their ranks and on this campus people who
were just here on a lark and talking about burn¬
ing the place down or striking, closing the
school—people who had no more interest in the
school than a prospector up in the mountains.

What actions do you feel were most important in
preventing more violence ?

I think it was the rallying of faculty and stu¬
dents together in many, many meetings all dur¬
ing that week, which pulled together students
from the College of Agriculture, College of En¬
gineering, and College of Arts and Sciences in
controlled situations where they could speak out,
speak their minds clearly and candidly in an un¬
inhibited way about what was bugging them. I
was fortunate enough to be asked to monitor some
of those discussions. Maybe I have a prejudiced
point of view, therefore. But I think that was ex¬
tremely important. The university community—
right wing or left wing and moderate—kind of
pulled together in a crisis situation, without any
doubt, to cool the troubled waters.

There was a meeting, for example, down the
street here the day before Hartman Hall was
bombed, with the assistant chief of police, one
faculty member besides myself, and four, five, or
six student liberals—or at least students who had
been identified with the peace movement. The
upshot of the meeting was that the students were
asking the assistant chief of police ... they were
informing him, first of all, of the possibility of
there being some kind of violence, which they
did not approve of. They consider themselves
nonviolent people, but they were feeling the same
kind of tension and crisis on campus as others
were who had their ear to the ground, and were
frying to find ways in which any possible vio¬
lence could be prevented. An understanding was
worked out, but unfortunately, in the end it didn’t
pan out. (I forget what the question was, in view
of the distraction here.)

Yes. The question had to do with the actions that
prevented more violence.

Oh, I think I’ve answered it. I think it was
the pulling together of students and administra¬
tors who really had a vested interest in this uni¬
versity.

JOHN P. MARSCHALL

273

How do you think the events on campus affect
our so-called image with outsiders?

General events or the events that we’ve been
talking about?

Well, mainly . . . this is the focus of our intend ew,
but other events, too.

I think that from what I’ve been able to note
in this town, the university has very little influ¬
ence in the city of Reno politically. I don’t think
that there’s a great deal of community interest in
what goes on at the university. It’s true that Pro¬
fessor Mordy has a widely-read column in the
newspaper and that the School of Agriculture has,
of course, a number of important contacts both
here in town and out in the counties, as well as
the School of Mines, but generally speaking, my
impression has been that the university has not
had a very great impact on the civic community.

But the events of Governor’s Day, the vio¬
lence the followed, led to a super-reaction within
the community that’s difficult to explain in view
of what I’ve just said. Because there has been
very little communication between uptown and
downtown—between the town and the gown.
Suddenly when they see in the newspaper or on
television that Hartman Hall has been fire
bombed, some people respond as though Berke¬
ley has somehow suddenly crossed the mountains
and has invaded northern Nevada. I think there
was considerable amount of overreaction largely 7
due to a great deal of ignorance about what re¬
ally is happening on this campus and what the
sentiments of the students and faculty really are.

What can the university do to focus public opin¬
ion ?

What can the university do? I think the uni¬
versity could do what we are trying to do begin¬
ning this week, and that is set up town-gown con¬
ferences with influential people both on campus
and off campus to talk about common problems.

For example, there was a statement made by
an influential member of our civic and political

community immediately after the first fire bomb¬
ing that we should not allow the so-called Cali¬
fornia long-hairs onto this campus, or they should
be somehow sent home. That’s a paraphrase, but
that’s my understanding of what he had said. I’m
sure that if I were a Californian and had a son or
daughter going to this university, that I’d think
twice about coming to Reno to gamble after heal ¬
ing that sort of thing. I think that it would be a
useful thing for members of the downtown com¬
munity and the university community to get to¬
gether and see what kind of effect that sort of
statement is really going to have economically,
politically, socially, and culturally on the rest of
northern Nevada. So I think some kind of institu¬
tionalized—by that I mean, a regular—confer¬
ence between members of the civic, political, and
academic community, whether we’re in crisis or
not, would be a very useful thing to anticipate
difficulties ahead and achieve some kind of mu¬
tual understanding.

Do you think the issues of academic freedom are
involved?

That’s a good question I haven’t given too
much thought to. I think academic freedom pri¬
marily refers to what a teacher, professor, is able
to say in the classroom itself. And I have very
strong feelings about allowing a professor who
is a qualified academician to say what he believes
is necessary to say.

On the other hand, I think that a good teacher
(and here I may be prejudiced, because I’m re¬
flecting the kind of teacher I would like to be)
ought to make it clear to students when he is giv¬
ing his own opinion and when he is presumably
reporting fact. As an historian, I occasionally will
use the technique of being the devil’s advocate,
and I think it’s a very useful educational device.
But the students generally know from my style
when I’m doing that. I’ll very often say, “OK.
This is Marschall and not history,” especially in
matters of current events.

What a professor does as a member of the
academic community outside the classroom is, I
think, determined only by the rights of his citi-

274

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

zenship. I don’t think that what a man does as a
citizen, as long as it’s within the law, ought in
any way to be used against him as an academi¬
cian. I think there’s a difference between a man’s
professional life and his private life and his po¬
litical life and his religious life.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally, or should they be trying to influence gov¬
ernmental policy?

Well, again, there’s an emerging, growing
feeling that students and faculty, because they are
citizens and supposed to be interested in not
merely some very small element of human knowl¬
edge, have to be concerned about the very sys¬
tem that makes education and learning possible—
which means involvement in some way in poli¬
tics, local politics, national politics, and perhaps
international politics, geopolitics. And since, I
guess, half of our nation is under twenty-five now,
I think it’s extremely important for college stu¬
dents to become very much aware of issues and
personalities in politics. I think it’s important for
them as future voters, if they don’t already have
the franchise, to express their opinions.

Legislators can do what they choose with
those opinions, or candidates can do what they
choose with those opinions. I believe the univer¬
sity has certain obligations, genuine obligations—
as the seedbed of future educators, future engi¬
neers, the leaders of our country. Well, because
of that fact, I think the members of the university
have an obligation to be concerned publicly about
political events.

Now, you asked the question very specifi¬
cally: how can they be involved? I think those
who are under twenty-one can be involved in the
same way any citizen over twenty-one can be in¬
volved in politics. And that means knowing who
your representatives are, being in touch with
them, making sure that they know what your feel¬
ings arc, and Lying to persuade them as best you
can to your point of view. Those who don’t have
the franchise, I think, can exercise the same kind
of persuasion, except they can’t bring their vote

to the polls. I think that when you believe some¬
thing very strongly, you are obliged in conscience
to persuade others—again I’m talking about non¬
violent means—to see it your way, allowing them
the freedom at all times to do it their way if they
don’t agree.

Yes, good. Where do you think the peace move¬
ment in this area is headed now?

I think it’s headed toward a certain amount
of repression in present time. In view of the reac¬
tion on the part of the civic community to the
events of Governor’s Day, unfortunately, some
people are tending to put radicalism, student mili¬
tants, long-hair, and certain liberal arts subjects
all into the same category. Assuming that all these
people have the same views politically, I would
feel that the peace movement in this particular
area—that is, the peace movement as we’ve seen
it in the last year—is not going to be anywhere
near as active because of the possibility of re¬
pression and the beating of heads, or the threat of
some heads getting busted.

I’ve heard some very strong and violent lan¬
guage used just in the last five days, since gradu¬
ation exercises, toward a person who happened
to be carrying a banner and had nothing to do
with peace or protest or anything. Carrying it
across campus, he was harassed by an adminis¬
trator and told that he could be arrested on the
spot, the presumption being that he was a student
who was going to be carrying a picket to or a
poster to graduation. I felt that the way that that
student was accosted was considerably out of line
with what he was doing. The assumption was that
he was out of line before the facts were ever
present. And if that attitude is prevailing now, I
think that peace movement, as we have known it,
is going to suffer a repression, and I don’t know,
frankly, what the reaction of students and faculty
to that will be. I think there’ll be some hostility.

Do you have other comments you ’d like to make
about this whole situation as it has evolved or
confronted us here on campus?

JOHN P. MARSCHALL

275

I guess the only thing that I would want to
emphasize, or perhaps to say again, is that I think
we have a great need for creative, thoughtful lead¬
ership that sits down with all elements on cam¬
pus and off campus and tries to anticipate prob¬
lem areas and work out a strategy that everybody
will be able to live with, or most everybody will
be able to live with. That’s the only way I think
that we can avoid violence, the only way I think
that we can grow as a community together, both
civically and academically.

N. Edd Miller

June 18, 1970

My name is N. Edd Miller. My residence is
4755 Canyon Drive. I’m president of the Uni¬
versity of Nevada, Reno.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed? This is sort of a silly question, but ev¬
erybody gets asked this.

I assume because of the position I’m in, as
well as the fact that I was, in one way or another,
a participant in the activities.

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to go into Cambodia ?

I was opposed to it. I viewed it with dismay,
actually.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

Well, I think it clearly was related, but I think
it was not a sole cause. I think it was really an
accumulation of a variety of things that had been

building up for some time, beginning with an
understandable, natural impatience of youth,
which I think is characteristic of any generation.
And added to that, the store of knowledge, the
instant communications, the variety of things that
young people are exposed to now, so that they’re
much more aware of what’s happening in the
world, and I think, as a result, more concerned
about these things, so that any sudden change in
the social or political climate, I think, really has
an impact on them. And this one was added to a
concern about the war, generally, concern about
domestic problems that they felt, and do feel,
need attention, when money is being spent on
the war that’s unpopular with them. And to see
the war expanded, I think, was an additional bur¬
den in then - minds about this. And then there’s
some other things unrelated to the war.

The campus unrest—which in itself, I think,
is a contagious kind of thing—the fact that it’s
happening someplace else, even if no causes were
clear, I think, would tend to make it happen at
other places, too. And clearly the Kent State situ¬
ation and recent violence and violent reaction to
violence, I think all these things added together,
and then the Cambodian decision on top of all
this, I think, was inflammatory.

278

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

N. Edd Miller, c. 1971.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodia decision —
the Kent State situation and some of the other
demonstrations or activities?

I think my feeling about the Kent State thing
was somewhat like the decision to move into
Cambodia: that it was really a tragic and unnec¬
essary thing. Some of the other things that I know
are part of this picture, like the Black Panther
trials in various parts of the country, but particu¬
larly back in Connecticut . . . I really don’t know
enough about what kind of impact that had, but
I'm sure it did have some.

I’ve kind of got lost in my answer to your
question, but I guess what I’m trying to say is
that while I view some of these activities as most
unfortunate, like the Kent State affair, I still view
as an equally great tragedy any kind of violence
that begins—wherever it begins, whoever starts
it, and almost for whatever reason. I just don’t
like violence as a way of tackling a problem,
whether students originate it, or whether the

National Guard originates it, or both. That’s not
a good answer.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangements as
they were made for the observance of Governor’s
Day?

Well, I guess there are two kinds of arrange¬
ments: those that were made officially—those
that were made by me and others in the univer¬
sity—and those that were made by students and
faculty and others as a protest to it. As you might
imagine, I gave a lot of thought to what we should
do about Governor’s Day in light of my concerns
I’ve just expressed about these other activities.
And I decided that Governor’s Day has been, and
was this year, a scheduled university activity in
the same kind of category, really, as a scheduled
class meeting. I do not believe in closing down
the university, and in effect, it would have been
that in a small part. I also must confess, rather
naively, to a greater degree of confidence in the
kind of behavior patterns that would exhibit them¬
selves than it turned out I was justified in believ¬
ing would happen. I didn’t think it would be car¬
ried that far, but I didn’t want to cancel
Governor’s Day.

I think the timing, as it turned out—through
nobody’s fault, because the date was set six
months prior to that, at the convenience of the
governor—was atrocious, but it seemed impor¬
tant that we go ahead with it. Very important.
The plans for the protest, I thought, were great—
the plans for it. We had done this the year be¬
fore, and it worked out very well, and so I was
delighted that they had a chance to express that
opinion, too.

What was your reaction to the demonstration, as
it turned out?

Well, I’ve said this publicly and I meant it. I
thought it was unnecessary. I’m very sorry that it
happened. I think it was a denial of the rights of
some people in this university community that
had a right to express themselves, not vocally,

N. EDD MILLER

279

but through a sanctioned activity. I thought it was
rude. I thought it took away a lot of things that I
think the group that took these things away would
like to keep for themselves.

If you want my reaction at the time, I think it
was one of tremendous disappointment, because
I had tried very hard to develop an open campus.
I could predict—not with certainty—but I could
predict what was going to follow this in terms of
public reaction, and I could really see the kinds
of things I had hoped for for this campus being
taken away from us. And I think this is happen¬
ing.

When those first few people walked out of
this bowl, I think we lost a lot of things on this
campus that I think we could have kept. Now it’s
going to be very, very difficult. So, I was greatly
disappointed with it. Not disappointed in the pro¬
test, because part of what I’ve just said is that I
believe that we should have the right to have pro¬
test and different points of view expressed. But
to do it in this way—to sit down in front of cars
and to disrupt a ceremony—I was sure that we’d
get a reaction that would make it almost impos¬
sible to go back where we were before that day.

What did you feel was the most effective part of
the demonstration and the Governor’s Day ob¬
servance, in the two almost opposing things?

The most effective part of the demonstrators
or of the whole affair?

Well, of the demonstration and of the observance.

You know, I think if the demonstrators had
simply marched from the bowl to the campus and
around the stadium and into the stands and then
permitted the ceremony to go on, I think they
would have made a really very important point,
and I would have cheered them. And so, if you
could omit the motorcade episode, up to their
marching around in the stadium and into the
stands, I thought this was fine, and I would have
defended completely what they were doing. So
that part of it was fine. It was what followed that
I think was unfortunate. The other thing that I

was tremendously impressed with was the ROTC
students. Their coolness under real provocation,
I thought, was outstanding.

In retrospect, then, what do you think should have
been the reaction of these various factions—if
you want to call them that—up there at the sta¬
dium: the demonstrators, the ROTC, the univer¬
sity administration?

Well, the ROTC, I really can’t think of much
they could have done better than they did. I think
they handled the situation well. I think the dem¬
onstrators, as I just said, did, too, until it became
clear that they really were intent on stopping the
ceremony, and that is my conviction that that’s
what they wanted to do. The march around the
stadium, and even the noise, would have been
fine if they’d permitted it to occur when nothing
else was happening, in a sense—that is, during
times when they weren’t drowning out speakers
or interfering with other parts of the ceremony. I
think they behaved very well up to that point.
Again, maybe I haven’t answered your question.

No, that’s fine. Did you feel that the administra¬
tion response was correct?

You’re giving me a chance for second
thoughts? [laughter]

Yes, well, you might as well!

Yes. I have pondered that a good deal, and I
wonder if there could have been something that
I could have said to them that would have made
them be quiet enough to give respect to the cer¬
emony, and maybe there is. Maybe I just didn’t
have the right words. Maybe not. The request, as
you may know, was made to me during the cer¬
emony to permit at least one speech against the
war, and I refused it for the same reason that I
mentioned much earlier, that this was, in my opin¬
ion, a scheduled university affair and not to be
disrupted. I’ve had a lot of people ask why we
didn’t stop it by sending the police in, and I think
that would have been a total disaster. I’d just

280

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

much rather have a raucous disruption than to
have people’s blood on my hands, and I think it
would have been that. But you know, some people
think that would have been the way to show that
you mean business, and it would, but that’s not
the kind of business that I want to be paid of. I
think the rest of the administration over there—
Colonel Hill and the others, I think, and Gover¬
nor Laxalt—showed a good deal of cool, and they
handled themselves and the situation very well.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day, the fire bombings?

I think it’s atrocious. The first one, when it
was .... Whoever did this must have known
the building was empty, and I just have always
had a great difficulty in understanding vandal¬
ism, even with a cause behind it. You know, there
are so many better ways to express a position
than to vandalize a piece of property, and so I
have great difficulty understanding why people
do that under any conditions, for whatever cause.
The second one [the Hobbit Hole] is, in some
ways, even more frightening, because people are
living there. People could have been killed. So,
both of those I can’t understand, and I deplore in
the worst kind of way.

What category of participant in the various af¬
fairs—the students, faculty, or outsiders—do you
think was most important in fomenting violence
on the campus?

Well, I know there are a lot of people out in
the state who indulge in a lot of wishful thinking
that this must have been a group of outsiders
who’ve come in and who’ve stirred up the na¬
tives, and there were some, but I think it’d be a
mistake to blame it all on a group of five or six—
that’s the best estimate I can get—if there were
outside agitators. They undoubtedly serve a kind
of catalytic function in a highly volatile situa¬
tion like that, no question about it, because they
have nothing at stake, and it’s easy then to urge
everybody else to take their lives in their hands.
But I think it was students and faculty and some

local non-students who I think were both con¬
cerned about what was happening in the world
and also caught up—as people do very easily—
in a kind of a group mob fervor, where the stan¬
dards of expectation are considerably different
than they are when they’re by themselves.

I think all the groups had a part in this. I’m
not discounting the outside “agitators,” but to
blame it all on them is a mistake. They were
nice—and I really mean this—fine young people
from Reno and Sparks and Fernley and Las Ve¬
gas and Hawthorne, as well as California and
other places, who I think just got earned away in
what turned out to be, in my opinion, a most un¬
fortunate disruptive situation.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
cooling off the situation after the fire bombings?

I think two things. One was the ASUN Sen¬
ate rap session on Wednesday. And I think as part
of that. Colonel Hill’s presence at that session,
and the way in which he managed himself on
that occasion. I think this was really a tremen¬
dous thing. I have great admiration, as you can
see, for that man. And the other thing, I think, as
a result of this, and as a result of a good deal of
work by deans and department chairmen, the
subsequent meetings—the candlelight service
and the Friday noon memorial service—were
really so well attended by all kinds of faculty
and students of all beliefs, ranging from the apa¬
thetic to the liberal to the conservative, that I think
this helped cool the situation, too, that it no longer
was a single cohesive group. It was a different
kind of cohesion. These were all people con¬
cerned about what had happened and, I think,
eager to help solve a critical situation. I think
they did. So that Wednesday night session plus
the participation of a lot of people who’d never
before taken part in anything like this, I think,
really helped. Maybe my getting out of town
helped, [laughter]

[laughter] How do you think events on campus
affect the university’s image with outsiders?

N. EDD MILLER

281

Do you want to see the stack of mail I was
getting? [laughter] I think in the state it’s been
so negative. At least I've heard so little about
people who feel that no damage has been done,
or very little. What I hear is that enormous dam¬
age has been done.

In another kind of perspective, there is a real
paradox. I’ve talked to colleagues at maybe half
a dozen other universities since then who really
just can’t believe the kind of reaction that we’ve
had to what on their campuses would be almost
an unnoticed event. My friends at the University
of Michigan, for example, think I’m just not tell¬
ing the truth, [laughter] telling them about the
kind of reaction we’re having to a Governor’s
Day that was disrupted by noise. But in the state,
I think we have a real problem, and whether we
think it’s justified or not, the problem is still there.
It’s like psychosomatic illness: it still hurts, you
know. The reaction’s been quite negative.

What function should the university have in fo¬
cusing public opinion?

I think one lesson is that we really have not
been as concerned as we should be about explain¬
ing ourselves—especially in the last year or so,
when so much has been happening on this cam¬
pus, as well as elsewhere—about what’s happen¬
ing and why. And the “what” sometimes gets out,
but the “why” behind it, I think, doesn’t. I don’t
think many citizens in this state understand the
kind of feeling that students and faculty now have
about the world around them, and I really don’t
think it’s just because they’re at a university. I
don’t think it’s anything that the university does
to them, but it’s a fact that, concentrated on a
college campus, are young people of about the
same age who generally share the kind of back¬
ground of information and experience. So here
they are all together, and it’s just easier for them
to react to each other and to things around them.
I’m not sure their reactions are much different
from bright kids who live in apartment houses
some place, but they have other people to talk to
about it here, and so it’s easier to develop dem¬
onstrations or whatever.

I don’t think we’ve made this point clear to
the people who are really concerned about the
university, and I think the people in this state are.
So it seems to me one thing we have learned is
that we should try to explain both what’s hap¬
pening and some of the reasons for it. I think
there’s been a little bit of that since Governor’s
Day, and I hope that in the fall we can do a whole
lot of this in a variety of ways. I don’t think there’s
any single pattern on it.

I must say—and I just hinted at this—that
the kind of negative reaction we’ve had, I think,
is not all to the bad, because I think it is a reflec¬
tion of a genuine concern by the people in this
state. It’s a small state, and they know the uni¬
versity, they know people here. I think basically
they take a lot of pride in this university, and I
think their feelings are hurt. Something that’s dear
to them misbehaved in a sense, so I think if we
can find ways to capitalize on this really latent,
but nonetheless real, goodwill on behalf of the
people of the state, I think we’re in great shape.
And maybe that’s the most important positive
lesson that we can get from all this.

Do you feel that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participating in a demonstration ?

No. I’m not sure I understand quite what that
question means, nor my answer to it—my quick
“no.” If you mean, “Does a professor have a right
to participate in a demonstration?” then I think
he does. I think there are some limits about how
he does this that are accepted in the profession
and that are paid of our university code as well.
And I don’t want to get into that, because there
are some charges now, but the right to partici¬
pate in a demonstration or a protest of any kind—
signing petitions or carrying signs or making
speeches—I think is a citizen’s right, and I don’t
think it really is an academic freedom right, in a
sense.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally, or should they be trying to influence gov¬
ernmental policy?

282

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Oh, I think they should, as individuals. I don’t
think the university as an institution should, but
I think part of the mission that we have as an
institution is to train people, educate them, give
them some background and some knowledge, and
hopefully a little bit of wisdom so that they can
become active participants within the system. I’m
old-fashioned enough to believe that it’s possible
to make changes within the system without
changing the whole system, and I hope our fac¬
ulty and the students try this. And I also hope,
rather desperately, that they give it more than a
one-shot try. This is what concerns me about next
fall: that if the elections don’t turn out the way
they want them to, this one time, that they may
be disillusioned about the whole process, which
would be a mistake. It takes time. It takes more
than a one-time effort, and that’s part of the trag¬
edy of the McCarthy attraction—that they gave
it that try, and then when that didn’t work, a great
many of them just left it instead of trying once
more or finding some other way to do it.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is going now?

I think it has a lot of support. It has a lot of
support among all kinds of people: politicians
and prominent people. I think it suffered a set¬
back because of the tactics that were used on
Governor’s Day in this area, because a lot of
people have identified that with the peace move¬
ment, but I don’t think it’s a permanent setback.
I think a regrouping of forces may be in order, if
a military term is appropriate here. I think it’s
strong and will continue to show itself.

Do you have some other comments you’d like to
make here?

I don’t think so. I guess my biggest feeling.
I’ve said a couple of times, was one of real dis¬
appointment, because I think one of my goals as
a president here was to ... . When I came here,
in my opinion, this campus was a beautiful place
with a lot of very able people, but a very quiet
place. And I’m not the troublemaker, I didn’t want

to stir up trouble, but I did want to create a cli¬
mate where people who had points of view could
feel free to express them. My problem about
Governor’s Day is the fear that this kind of open
campus has been damaged so much that it’ll be a
long time before we can get back to where we
were. I hope I’m wrong, because I think if that is
a consequence, I think the university has lost a
good deal, in my opinion.

[laughter] A lot of people wouldn’t agree
with it, but I think a university should be a fo¬
rum, and I think this is a very important paid of
education. What happens in a classroom is a good
way to systematize and organize education, but
a lot of education ought to take place in more
informal, perhaps unsystematic, perhaps even
disorganized fashions that require a greater in¬
tellectual effort in doing your own organizing,
with what you hear and what other people say
and your own thoughts. And you really lose
something, I think, if you take that away from
education. If we’ve lost even some paid of our
freedom to do that—through a public forum,
through expression of unpopular ideas, or even
as in the case of Governor’s Day—an expres¬
sion of popular ideas was really effectively taken
away, popular in this state. If we’ve lost the tol¬
erance for expression of ideas, then I think we
have lost a lot, and that will be a shame.

Yes.

Charlotte E. Morse

June 5, 1970

So, just for the record if you ’ll say your name,
your home, and what your class and major are.

OK. My name is Charlotte Morse, and I come
from Carson City, Nevada. I’m a junior, going to
be a senior in psychology.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Well, I suppose that it probably has some¬
thing to do with my being president of Associ¬
ated Women Students. I’m very much a paid of
the student government, but I don’t feel that I al¬
ways have been or have always thought in the
same channels as everyone else in student gov¬
ernment, and that sometimes I’ve become very
disillusioned with it. But I think by virtue of my
being elected, that maybe I do represent some
people’s opinions, some other people’s opinions,
and they have faith in what I would say or the
kind of way that I would talk about things and
think about things on campus.

Yes, good. What was your own reaction to Presi¬
dent Nixon ’.v decision to go into Cambodia with
troops?

Well, I thought it was a great tragedy. I feel
that his decisions in Vietnam have caused immea¬
surable difficulties and problems within our own
country and in Vietnam. I feel that the war effort
is a series of serious mistakes, and I feel like he
just compounded the problems by deciding to
move into Cambodia.

In what way do you think the Cambodian deci¬
sion was related to what happened next here on
our campus?

I think that the whole war in Vietnam is a
source of great disillusionment and despondency
on the part of students. We’re just beginning to
feel like we want some control over our lives and
what will happen to us and how our country is
going and how other people are living in our coun¬
try. And I think that’s not to be discounted, al¬
though there are definitely other factors influenc¬
ing people who will protest and demonstrate ac-

284

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Charlotte Morse, 1971.

tively. I very sincerely feel that this is something
that they should be speaking about and making
themselves known in, and they feel very strongly
against the war. I know of people involved in this
sort of thing that are really seriously concerned
about it. Certainly there are people hanging on
for the fun of it, or for personal reasons or for
other kinds of reasons, but I think it was very
definitely a strong factor. I know people have felt
very badly about this and wanted to make an ex¬
pression of their opinion known to anyone they
could. And that was the way they found to do it.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodia decision?

I think that there can be a lot of confusion
due to the interpretation and the reporting of the

mass media. I think that they have a very strong
influence on the way these things are reported
and the kinds of effects that they can have on
people. I think lots of students here felt influenced
by what was going on in other campuses, although
we aren’t ever quite sure what it is that is moti¬
vating people in those places. There was a lot of
confusion, you know, about what it meant for
these Kent State students to die—and one of them
was in ROTC, I think. And they weren’t all pro¬
testing the war as such; they were just people with
feelings going about their business. And that this
could happen influences us strongly.

I think we do feel in some way a sense of
community with students and other campuses and
what they’re thinking about this. I think, also,
there’s an element of prestige to be considered
on it, and you don’t want to say nowadays that
you go to a quiet little campus that’s “hick” and
is not protesting, is not affected by anything, and
is so provincial as to not even be aware of these
things—although that might not be the case. But
I know there’s something to be said for someone
who comes from Berkeley and has been in on
things like this, you know. And I think that af¬
fects kids. I think, also, we do feel some sense of
being in with them, having the same concerns and
being aware of the same kinds of problems that
they are in, wanting to express them, and seeing
a model for that expression.

Turning now> to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangement made
for the observance of Governor’s Day?

I can understand those people who protested
and how they feel about the university, the presi¬
dent, and the governor of the state officially rec¬
ognizing and giving support to something like
Governor’s Day. While I understand that people
have a right to participate in ROTC, and certainly
to parade and express their pride and loyalty and
be given honors for doing so, I think I see a prob¬
lem in the university sanctioning only an activity
of that sort. I think no matter how it is in fact, it
certainly appears that the university would sup¬
port something like this and then just sort of “al-

CHARLOTTE E. MORSE

285

low” other sorts of antiwar demonstrations to go
on.

While I don’t know if it’s necessary for the
university to take a stand against the war or for
the war, I think that it should officially support
both sides—and most of the support has been one¬
sided so far. It’s ridiculous, you know, to say that
ROTC is the whole root of the Vietnam problem
or something like that. I do think that there’s
something of a connection there in that as a uni¬
versity, and as the president of the university.
President Miller has agreed to support that sort
of organized military thing. It seems to need some
sort of an endorsement in the sense that he
wouldn’t support something that was contrary in
ideas to that.

What was your reaction to the demonstrations?

I think one trouble when you have a demon¬
stration like that is that it needs to be really tight
and controlled and well-organized, and I think
that’s hai'd to get with the sort of mixture of people
that you get. They had meetings and meetings
endlessly—and fighting—and no one ever agrees
on anything. I think it’s unfortunate that they
couldn’t have just marched around the field. I
think that would be a very worthwhile expres¬
sion of their opinion and very noticeable certainly.

But I think as far as circulating a leaflet that
the activities had been canceled, or yelling and
shouting and being rude, in some sense they
weren’t being so much rude to the organized mili¬
tary as they were to just the people participating.
I mean, President Miller is a person, and so is the
mother whose son had been killed and who had
this memorial established to him. I think she was
just his mother, and she’d just come to honor him.
I think they forget that those are people and not
just, you know, big ideas somehow that they’re
protesting. I think it could have been effectively
done.

On the parts of some of the teachers con¬
cerned and some of the people, there were ef¬
forts to really pull things together and not have
anything ugly occur, but it’s awfully hard when

you get some people who feel very strongly and
don’t really know how to express it. I think they
feel like the channels that they maybe should be
using are not available to them or are not open,
and they will, in desperation—whether it’s real
or imagined—just resort to whatever they can do
to try and make someone hear them in some way.
I think it’s unfortunate that things had to be car¬
ried to the extent that they were. But I think it
was all right for them to make their opinions
known at such a time.

Did you feel it was necessary to participate in
any of the demonstrations or in the observance
of Governor’s Day?

I myself had no interest in observing, and I
can’t imagine ever wanting to observe that. As I
said before, I feel strongly about it. I’m not sure
that’s the best way of expressing it. I like to be
assured that some place that I am putting my body
and my voice—and, you know, everything that I
have, actually—is controlled and well thought
out. It’s hard to get. You know, I will allow for
some latitude in some sort of demonstration, but
I have the feeling that things might get a little
messier than they should. And for something that
I believe, I don’t necessarily feel that I have to go
to every meeting, every demonstration, and ev¬
erything that happens with people who are pro¬
testing. I don’t always feel the necessity for be¬
ing there. And I had the feeling that it might go
farther than I was willing to go, and so I didn’t
take part.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration—the demonstration itself?

I think, as I said, if they had just demonstrated
and shown their opinions by just walking around
the track as they did at first, I think that would
have been quite effective. When you get into the
catcalling and the noise-making and just rude¬
ness .... I think there’s a place for people re¬
specting one another. And I think people forget
that there are still acceptable channels—some that

286

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

maybe haven’t even been explored—of making
your views known and exerting some influence
over other people without being rude and having
to resort to other things.

You didn’t go to the Governor’s Day obsen’ance
ceremony.

No. I didn’t.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the ROTC up at the field, from what you know
about it?

I can understand that they were angry. If
someone has been treated rudely, I think it’s a
natural reaction to be angry. I can understand their
feelings. And I think that they could understand
how these people felt, though. They have a right
to be carrying on their activity, and I can under¬
stand that they were insulted and angered by
someone interfering. These students weren’t pro¬
testing so much against these individuals doing
that as against the university sanctioning such a
view.

What should have been the reaction of the uni¬
versity administration ?

I think that President Miller should, as I said,
take steps to make a more equal, official position
of the university toward both kinds of ideas. I
think that allowing and accepting expression of
opinions against the war could possibly be sort
of fortified by, you know, official university plans
for making these views known, just as they are
for ROTC. I think he could formally recognize
both views in a stronger, more substantial way.

I think he was approached before the cer¬
emony. He and Procter Hug and Governor Laxalt
were all three approached by an English teacher
who said that he thought there would be trouble.
Procter Hug couldn’t understand that, and it
meant nothing to Governor Laxalt, really, not
knowing the situation. President Miller, I’m cer¬
tain, understood, but he chose not to act on it at
ah. And had he said something (it wouldn’t have

to be a strong commitment, but a recognition of
those people and of their views), I think it could
have been a tremendous factor in how things went
that day and how those people felt.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the fire bombings?

From the boys that I know that are police¬
man and from other opinions, I’m just almost
certain that it was people outside the university
who were doing the fire bombings. I know at least
on the first one that the police had evidence that
it was someone off campus. I think that sort of
thing is designed by people outside the univer¬
sity who, for some reason—like so much of the
state of Nevada—have great antipathy for the uni¬
versity and the kinds of things that they think or
suspect we are doing, or the kind of things that
they think we should be doing and aren’t. I think
that that sort of thing, a fire bombing, could be
planned to sort of fracture things around here and
make people split off and split people up into
groups—and get to people who, like myself, have
considered themselves liberal. Then when vio¬
lence comes, you sort of swing over in the other
direction and it splits you off from everyone. And
I think that possibly that was the kind of thing
that was planned as far as those were concerned.

I think most of the students were horrified
by the idea and certainly don’t want a violent
approach to things around here. I think that pos¬
sibly from that, maybe we—I hope—got a sense
that we had to stick together, that we have much
more interest in each other (you know, whether
we’re longhair or cowboy or whatever), that we
have an interest in the university that we feel has
to be protected, and that certainly we couldn’t
allow things to split off. So I think, while the
events were just unfortunate and the wrong way
to go about things, I don’t think it was students. I
think that maybe the offshoot of that could be
good—that, you know, we will react to that in a
way that will draw us together.

Yes, good. What category of participant (well, you
have kind of alluded to this before)—students or

CHARLOTTE E. MORSE

287

faculty or outsiders—do you think was most im¬
portant in stirring up violence?

I think that it was the outsiders. I know that
on the efforts of some faculty, there were just great
efforts to make sure there was no violence—and
lots of students. Dan Teglia, who was instrumen¬
tal in organizing lots of these things, has been
just struggling and pulling to avoid a violent ap¬
proach. Frankie Sue Del Papa made her views
known. President Miller has said violence is not
the way, and I think most of us understand that.
While there will be a lot of talk among the blacks
maybe—you know, this militant sort of attitude—
I think it is mostly talk.

The language that’s used gets kind of esca¬
lated. In one of those big meetings where all these
ideas are being tossed around, somebody says,
“Well, we should just bomb the whole thing or,
you know, burn the whole place.” It's just sort of
an expression, and I don’t think anyone really
takes it seriously. I think, possibly, some of those
black students do, but I really doubt that when it
got to it that they would resort to this sort of thing.

So, you do think the outsiders were important.

Yes, definitely.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence after the fire bombings?

I think, and as I said, the reaction to the fire
bombing was one thing in itself. Students just
don’t care for that sort of approach to things, and
I think that we understood that. Having the Kent
State incident made us all feel that certainly that
wasn’t what we wanted done. Although we’re
getting pretty desperate about things and we want
to be heard, that’s no answer at all.

Also, possibly, so many students hanging
around the student union. Hippies and long-hairs
arc getting together and talking with cowboys and
people, just discussing things and willing, for
once, to sit down and talk about something—be¬
cause it was recognized by everyone as a major
campus issue— the major issue, and that doesn’t

always happen. I think that their willingness to
sit down and talk with one another for several
days following that—the Wednesday and Thurs¬
day—people were constantly around the student
union, sitting in little groups talking about things.
I think that that really helped. It seems like a lot
of waste of energy in some ways, because there
was just all this loose talk and, you know, maybe
no resolution of problems seen. But just the fact
that people realized that they could talk to some¬
one who was so completely different, or that they
thought was so different from them, and people
really considering it as a problem did count.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image outside?

Well, just a couple of weeks ago I went, as
part of the University Information Team, to a
Lutheran church. (I think it was Faith Lutheran
Church up there on the hill.) I think people have
a great deal of misunderstanding about what goes
on here and why. We found those people were
just kind of hungry for you to tell them anything
that you could about what was happening here,
really: and why was that going on? What are
people’s feelings about this? How did nice kids
graduate from high school and go up there and
become radical, horrible, long-haired liberals who
have nothing but destruction on their minds?
[laughter]

They receive so much conflicting informa¬
tion, I think, through the news media and through
people like Senator Slattery and people just ex¬
ploiting events here for their own purposes or for
someone’s puiposes. [laughter] I don’t quite un¬
derstand. But I think they misunderstand a lot.
And I think it’s easy to get out of touch with
what’s going on at the university, especially in a
community like Reno where it’s not a college
town; it’s not an intellectual community. I think
there’s a difference of interests between what’s
going on downtown and what’s going on up here.
It’s kind of hard to get those together. I don’t think
it’s impossible, and it would be very worthwhile,
but so far not many efforts have been made. We
sort of exist apart up on the hill. I think the more

288

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

we can do that, the better, because there are lots
of individuals in the community who are really
concerned and interested and don’t really under¬
stand what’s going on. I think they’re being ex¬
ploited just as much as we are by interests to split
us apart and say that, you know, we’re some hor¬
rible kind of maniacs raking around up here,
[laughter]

What can the university do in helping to focus
public opinion?

I think next year we’re going to make efforts
to just reach everyone in the community that we
can in any sort of organized service groups or
churches. There’s going to be a program by the
senate to reach people through churches. And, of
course, that’ll be rather limited, but also going to
businesses downtown and telling them what we’re
doing and asking for their cooperation. There are
going to be forums this summer at the Center with
people from the community, community leaders
and legislators, and students and faculty getting
together and really trying to understand what we
don’t understand about each other.

I think individual students returning to their
communities (I will probably do this) could speak
to people that they know. I live in Carson City,
and I plan to contact influential people there that
I know so that they have some sort of understand¬
ing of what we’re doing: legislators and the people
involved in lobbying and in legislative interests,
or people in churches or groups or just individu¬
als. And do this just to let them know that you’re
still a person, and that you don’t split yourself—
have a home self and a university self—and that
you have the same concerns as you always did,
but you see different means of accomplishing the
life that you always thought you wanted.

Yes, good. Do you think the issues of academic
freedom are involved in participating in demon¬
strations?

Well, I don’t know exactly in what sense you
mean, [laughter]

Well, academic freedom should be sort of broadly
defined: freedom to learn in a free atmosphere,
and a teacher’s freedom to be free from repres¬
sion on what he’s teaching.

Oh, I see. Yes, I think especially when you
come to somebody like Fred [Maher] and Dr.
Adamian. I think that certainly they have a right
to express their views. To think that someone
could point to Fred and say, “Well, in one class
on one day he talked about this certain thing,” is
really a far-fetched idea. If someone can be shown
to be consistently neglecting his teaching duties
in some way or biasing all his views presented to
a class, that’s one thing. But I think it’s hard to
pinpoint anyone’s faults and hold them respon¬
sible for their whole jobs for that one day. You
know, he doesn’t see himself as having done that.

I think that in a lot of freshman English
classes (and it’s been my experience) kids will
get very excited about kinds of ideas that they’re
healing—or they think they’re hearing—and get
excited and run to someone and tell them that
they feel this is wrong, and something should be
done about this. I think when the administration
has to react to things like that and to pressures
from the regents who have, in turn, had pressures
from downtown .... I know Procter Plug got just
numerous phone calls protesting about this, say¬
ing, “Get something done, and do something rap¬
idly.”

I think to strike at a teacher or at a student is
a really serious mistake. I think whether you have
a Sundowner or some sort of hippie, it’s hard to
gauge by grades or anything what someone is
getting out of school. And just because someone
is a Sundowner and behaves atrociously (to most
of our views) [laughter] on the weekends, that
doesn’t mean that he can’t be making a signifi¬
cant academic contribution, even if only for him¬
self or maybe to the whole university. Or the same
thing with some of these hippies, you know.
They’re whole people, and they aren’t just doing
the one thing. You get pretty touchy, I think, and
on pretty risky ground when you go restricting
someone academically. And I think it is an aca-

CHARLOTTE E. MORSE

289

demic issue because it’s a whole university at¬
mosphere you're talking about and not just a
classroom.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally, or should they try to influence political
governmental policies ?

I think that they definitely should. That’s just
the way things are today. You have to organize, I
think, to be effective. Structures are set up in chan¬
nels, and whether or not they’re being used prop¬
erly, they’re what we have to use. I think that cer¬
tainly students should make efforts to organize
and work politically, say, for Charlie Springer or
for whoever they want to.

I know schools in the East where they’re clos¬
ing down the school for two weeks before the
elections to allow students to be out knocking on
doors, going to and talking to people, making their
views known, and, you know, taking part in the
political process. I think certainly our student
government will be actively involved in what the
legislature is doing and in lobbying and talking
to people concerning university interest. Individu¬
ally, students and faculty and people at the uni¬
versity can have a lot of influence, you know, in
a rational manner over what’s going on. I think
that that’s a good way to go about things, and the
power for change lasts.

Where do you think the peace movement here is
headed?

Wow, it’s hard to tell, [laughter] I hope that
one sort of outgrowth, or an offshoot, of the
Governor’s Day incident is that people who
thought they were real far apart as far as any¬
thing was concerned—campus matters or politi¬
cal matters on a state or national scale—have seen
that there’s not that great a difference. I think Dan
Teglia and some of these people can really get
some thoughtful, well-planned action and, you
know, real efforts at controlling things, which I
think is really crucial. You just get a lot of hang¬
ers-on, a lot of people who haven’t found a way

to feel identified with anything, who will slip right
into something like the peace movement and feel
well accepted. Because, you know, they don’t care
necessarily what your credentials are and, I mean,
they just want you.

I think it’s easy for kids who have no place to
go to start dressing hip and, you know, wearing
all the badges, the beads and everything as far as
that’s concerned—and then to be very easily
sucked in by this. I think that they have to take
care that they aren’t just using people. There are
some good people concerned that that not hap¬
pen, and who want to take action. I think that’s a
good part of what they do: that they can activate
people really quickly, you know, sling up some
posters and go. And amazingly enough, they’re
turning out people.

I don’t know. I think a change in the campus
overall—but something that organized student
government hasn’t necessarily been able to ac¬
complish—is getting people excited about some¬
thing. You know, I don’t think it’s necessarily their
responsibility to worry about whether people are
meeting by themselves—which is a good thing—
and they certainly should encourage it, but there’s
no way that formally they can do that. I mean,
they just can’t. People have realized that it’s an
individual responsibility. Now, whether they will
carry through with that and tty to integrate them¬
selves into what everyone’s doing, and what
worthwhile things they think could be accom¬
plished, remains to be seen.

I don’t necessarily think everyone has to be a
part of what’s structured now, but it just seems
like that’s where our money is being controlled,
and that’s where we have an effective means of
getting things done, and it hasn’t been used very
well. I think these people’s excitement and inter¬
ests could be translated there. But when you get
with some of those people, the only problem is
that they don’t want to be bothered with showing
up for committees or keeping appointments or
coming around to work out the details. They want
to come up with the ideas, but not necessarily the
work. And I think it’s a problem to kind of move
them all in that way. [laughter]

290

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Do you have any other comments you ’d like to
make about the whole situation?

Well, one thing that was really interesting for
me, personally, is that I’ve been taking that semi¬
nar on aggression, and we had quite a few people.
We had a boy who was involved with the student
newspaper—a couple of them—a bunch of stu¬
dents who are involved in student government,
some people who are just interested in what’s
going on, and people from all sorts of disciplines.
And we really talked about aggression and vio¬
lence and student protests and all.

One thing that I found in relation to this class
(and that I used in a paper that I wrote) was that
one of my psychology professors, Dick Inglis, has
done this paper talking about all these different
methods and channels of change, about affecting
things as they are, and about processes for change
that haven’t been explored—and that people are
ignoring without really giving a chance. He was
saying that each individual has a lot of power to
influence people that they never use or realize
and feel, and he suggested all these different al¬
ternatives.

I think if these processes and structures were
such that people felt that when they spoke they
were really influencing people, they could see
some results, and they could be rational and
thoughtful about the whole thing, it would really
make a change in things. You know, it’s some¬
thing for each student to consider as far as the
demands he makes: are they reasonable? What is
their effect? What would come out of them if they
were to be acted upon? If the administration could
feel that we were sincere in our efforts, and if
they’d know that they should at least give us rea¬
son to know that we are being heard and consid¬
ered, everyone could have a sense of that power.
They’d know that they could influence people,
that it would sure make a difference—and not so
much desperation and just random hits at what¬
ever they can get.

Edward A. Olsen

July 14, 1970

Home residence, Reno. Director of Informa¬
tion, University of Nevada, Reno.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed for the project?

Apparently, because I witnessed part of the
demonstration.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia with troops?

I was fearful of it and fearful that it would
antagonize those who were already antagonized
by Vietnam.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on the UNR
campus?

Oh, I think it was related only as another
minor prop in the efforts of those who had had an
organized peace movement on campus, the stu¬
dents actively supporting peace crusades, and this
was just another element to assist them.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country that were related to the Cambodia
decision: the Kent State affair and some of the
others?

Well, my reaction was that such reactions on
the parts of students on college campuses were
almost inevitable, and that the Kent State thing
was a tragedy which is the ultimate of violence
begetting violence.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangements
made for observing Governor’s Day?

Well, ironically, this year for the first time
(at least in my three years in association), the
Military Department had made every effort to de-
emphasize the military aspect of Governor’s Day
and try to emphasize a cooperative, civilian as¬
pect. Our pre-publicity was pegged to the con¬
cept that it would be a day in honor of the gover¬
nor with both civilian and the traditional military
ceremonies.

Colonel Hill, the new ROTC commander and
Military Department chairman, had worked out
a plan whereby, in addition to the ordinary cer-

292

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Edward Olsen, 1952.

emony for parents, and to honor the students in
the president’s office, there would be a reception
for the governor in the Travis Union, at which
certain faculty members would be invited. This
was his effort to make it both civilian and mili¬
tary.

Unfortunately, I think the military brought
upon itself at least a portion of the ensuing
events—the blockade of that motorcade. The
motorcade previously had always taken off on a
standard campus roadway from Clark Adminis¬
tration building. This time, for some reason or
another, the motorcade was lined up on the only
available sidewalk between the south portion of
the campus and the north portion of the campus.
Well, the military apparently had an alternative
plan in which they had proposed to line up their
motorcade on Virginia Street. If they had followed

that plan, it would have pretty much obviated any
blockade of the motorcade, because the block¬
ade, to my way of thinking, developed totally
spontaneously and accidentally.

Do you want me to pursue what I saw at the
blockade?

If you 'd like to—the next question has to do with
your reaction to the demonstration.

Well, let me go ahead with what I saw at the
blockade. I had attended the reception, although
uninvited I might add—apparently only deans or
certain structural levels were invited for the gov¬
ernor. I had decided that since it was a long dis¬
tance to the gym, I would undertake to go up to
the parking lot and hop a ride with someone to
the gym.

EDWARD A. OLSEN

293

So I left apparently—unknowingly, but ap¬
parently—just before the governor and his party
did (it was the governor, the visiting general
[Franklin] from the Sixth Army, and President
Miller). There was one university police car im¬
mediately in the front of the governor’s car which
headed the procession. I must have arrived there
about, oh, fifteen seconds or so before the gover¬
nor and his party had, and I noticed a young man
seated on the ground in front of the car.

At that point the two university policemen
(one, an older man; and two, a somewhat more
impatient, younger man about thirty-five) came
out of the police car and went to the student sit¬
ting in front of the car and told him to move. The
student declined to move, whereupon the middle-
aged policeman, the younger man—and I don’t
think he really meant to say this, but this is what
he did say—he said, “I will give you either one

minute, or I’m going to take you to jail,” where¬
upon the student replied, “OK, I’ll take the
minute.”

So at this point Dr. Miller and the general
and the governor had all got into their car with¬
out really recognizing what was going on up front.
And Dr. Miller finally emerged from the car and
came up and asked the young man to leave.

And the young man stated, “He gave me a
minute, and I still have forty seconds,” looking
at his wristwatch.

Whereupon the more impatient police officer
stalled to grab the boy, but the older officer inter¬
rupted, saying, “You gave him a minute. You’ve
got to stick with your word.”

And when it was explained to Dr. Miller that
the officer had given the youngster one minute to
move, well. Dr. Miller agreed and he went back
and got into his car. [laughter] Whereupon at the

“I must have arrived there about, oh, fifteen seconds or so before the governor and his party had, and I noticed a
young man seated on the ground in front of the car. ”

294

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

end of the one minute, the boy did get up and
move, and the two policemen went back to their
cai' and took off, as did the governor’s car.

I’m convinced that one-minute delay was just
enough , accidentally and coincidentally, for that
vanguard of a group marching up from the bowl
(and having to walk on the lawn because of the
sidewalk blockage) to arrive at the scene and sud¬
denly recognize the ideal potential that existed
there, even though the governor’s car had already
departed.

In the advance group of marchers was Pro¬
fessor Adamian, who appeared to be quite ex¬
cited and went out in front of the balance of mo¬
torcade. The next car in line contained, among
others, Procter Hug, the chairman of the Board
of Regents. Professor Adamian got out in front,
along with a number of other students who had
been marching up that direction—not marching,
but walking as a large group. The professor waved
his arms in the air, and he chanted, “More people!
More people!” whereupon a number of others,
who had been walking up, ran up. And pretty soon
that entire, very constricted area between Lincoln
Hall and the library was blocked by students, and
in short order, and it became impossible for the
vehicles to move—although some of the military
drivers did put the vehicles in gear and try to push,
but finally thought better of it and just stopped
altogether, anyway.

A fistfight broke out at this point between
what appeared to be two people on the same side
of the fence rather than opposing forces. But it
was impossible to tell what they were fighting
over. The two were separated by other students.

And then a youngster came and threw him¬
self on his stomach in front of one of the cars,
and it was actually impossible for the driver to
see him in that position. The car was in motion
very, very slowly and it appeared that it might
well run over him without the driver even know¬
ing he was there. At this point Professor Adamian
ran back and bodily, and with much verbal en¬
couragement, removed the youngster from that
position. But the blockade lasted, oh. I’d say, three
to five minutes.

At that point. Chief Malone was already up
at the empty stadium along with the two officers
in the other car and the governor, the general, and
the president of the university all at the stadium
by themselves, [laughter] He was surprised at the
disturbance and by pre-arrangement had had city
police in the vicinity off campus. Dick called for
traffic assistance, and the city police arrived and
opened a hole, which permitted the motorcade to
head out onto Virginia Street. It evidently had
planned to continue along campus up past fine
arts and directly go to the stadium without leav¬
ing campus, but the number of people just walk¬
ing in the direction of the stadium made that dif¬
ficult. So the police did open a hole, and the mo¬
torcade went out onto Virginia Street and on up
to the stadium in that fashion.

What was your reaction to the demonstration?

That portion of it?

Any of it.

Well, to that portion my reaction was one that
it was unfortunate and, frankly, accidental. I think
the military should have had a little more fore¬
thought, in view of the advertised fact that there
was going to be a peace gathering in the bowl—
as there had been last year and the year before.
The peace gathering group seemed to be totally
disorganized and without any plan as to what they
were going to do. But when they saw all the mili¬
tary cars come up the Center Street driveway past
the bowl and then go park on the sidewalk, from
what others have told me, somebody finally sug¬
gested they all march to the stadium, really with¬
out a plan at that point. So I’d just say my reac¬
tion to the motorcade was that it was just some¬
thing that could have been avoided, but unfortu¬
nately wasn’t. It didn’t do any great harm or dam¬
age to anybody, and I didn’t find it all that bad.

My reaction to the group at the stadium was
somewhat different. I felt they were pretty tired
at that point, after they arrived at the stadium and
were permitted—without any effort and interfer-

EDWARD A. OLSEN

295

ence whatsoever—to march around the stadium
two or three times (three times, I think, I watched
them march around the track). A number of them
at that point left the area, but a number climbed
into the stands.

After climbing into the stands, they became
totally boorish and quite rude. And then, of
course, toward the end many in the stands, but
not all of them, left the stands and pursued the
Negro contingent—which had not gone into the
stands to begin with, but had gone down on the
field to sit quietly, but not in the way of anyone.
When the others came down to join the Negro
group and then got up and literally defied the
marching units and did everything they could to
interrupt them, my reaction was that it was over¬
done and was certainly a harm to those who be¬
lieve sincerely in the cause of the peace move¬
ment. (It did set it back, I felt, tremendously. I
even think that’s being reflected today.)

One incident at the stand (in case we hadn’t
picked that up earlier): there was this great con¬
sternation about the boy who played taps at the
time of the presentation of an award by the par¬
ents of a boy who had been lost in Vietnam. Those
who were fully cognizant of the situation were
really quite upset by the youngster playing taps,
but there were many students and other observ¬
ers in the stands who felt that that was part of the
program and believed that it was part of the pro¬
gram. Actually, the youngster who played taps
had come down to the band and encountered two
of his friends there and tried to talk the two of
them into lending him an instrument. One boy
refused, but another one on the end did give him
his trombone, and that gave him an instrument
with which he could play the taps.

Did you feel it was necessary to participate in
any of the demonstrations or the activities, to be
a real participant?

I have not been personally a participant in
demonstrations.

What did you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration and of the Governor's Day
observance?

Effective from whose standpoint? [laughter]
Any way you want to read it.

Well, frankly, from the standpoint of the
peace movement, I don’t think the whole day was
effective or any part of it, really. After all, the
military ceremony was a tradition for a limited
number of interested people, just as the peace
gathering is now a tradition for an equally lim¬
ited number of interested people. I think what the
demonstration brought about was a sudden aware¬
ness on the part of some of the demonstration
leaders of their inability to control people. I think
it led many of them into the belief that perhaps
more dialog, rather than action, would be profit¬
able.

And, as you know, the following night (the
Wednesday night after the Tuesday Governor’s
Day) they developed pretty much spontaneously,
but on a large basis, a mass meeting in the Travis
lounge, in which the so-called aggies (or cow¬
boys or what-have-you, the people who had op¬
posed the peace people) showed up for perhaps
not a very effective dialog, but at least a loud one.
And that night I had been designated by Dr. Miller
as one of a committee of three to make the deter¬
mination of when and if we should call for out¬
side help in event the discussion went beyond the
discussion stage.

The lounge was just absolutely jammed.
There was standing room only out in the lobby
and just no way for people to get in, nor was there
any way for many people to hear. But it became
obvious that it could have been pretty impossible
to have much of any physical confrontation within
such a sardine environment. So we then con¬
cluded that if it did develop into a physical con¬
frontation on the part of a few people, the only
place they could go to get it out of their system
would be out on the lawn in front of the Travis.

296

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

We had campus policemen stationed at all the
sprinkler valves—upon signal, radio signal—to
turn on all the sprinkling systems. We also had
the fire hoses manned in Lincoln Hall to just water
everybody down and consequently, perhaps, cool
the situation without having to resort to calling
in outside policemen.

That night, after the major meeting broke up,
the student body leaders suggested that a series
of smaller groups go to various parts of the build¬
ing to discuss whatever they wanted to discuss.
And it was interesting to me. I went around to
several of them and found many of them in a va¬
riety of discussions. One group was being lec¬
tured by Ben Hazard about how Dr. Miller was
not doing his job and so on, so forth, and he was
leading quite a diatribe there. In another group
Colonel Hill and several of his ROTC cadets were
engaging in very polite debate and exchange of
ideas—on both sides—over the entire Vietnam
program. There were long-hairs and short-hairs,
and it was really quite an interesting dialog. It
was a totally polite and totally rational discus¬
sion. As a matter of fact, I left about, oh, 11:30 or
12:00, and Colonel Hill’s group was still involved
in this discussion at 2:00 a.m., when Colonel Hill
received a call to advise him of the fact the ROTC
building had been fire bombed. He was still in
discussion down on campus with the group at that
time.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various groups involved up at the stadium
on Governor’s Day: the administration, the dem¬
onstrators, the ROTC?

Well, despite my own sympathies toward the
peace movement, I don’t believe that the demon¬
strators really had the right to interfere with some¬
one else’s meeting, someone else’s ceremony.
And the fact that they did was accepted by all
concerned, up to a point.

Dr. Miller, as you may know, finally called
upon the group to shut up. This is after they’d
gotten to the stands and had done their marching
and what-have-you. He finally called upon the

group to at least be polite enough to permit the
ceremony to go on uninterrupted. I don’t see
where he could have done any more than he did
at that point. He declined their request to have a
speaker, which I think was right. The faculty
members who participated in the march—and in
many instances became upset that the thing was
getting out of hand—I think, did their best to try
to cool it. Although, there again, Professor
Adamian was outstanding in his efforts to keep
the kids up.

What other reaction could anybody have
shown? I think the cadets displayed a truly re¬
markable discipline in not lining somebody with
a bayonet, which could have led to really a tragic
consequence. God knows they were baited far
enough to do it. So I think the reaction of all con¬
cerned was just about as good as it could have
been, [laughter]

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day: the fire bombing of
Hartman Hall and the one at the Hobbit Hole?

Well, I’m convinced that both of them were
amateurish and not really an action of any large
group. I think once again that those two incidents,
along with the Governor’s Day thing sort of get¬
ting out of hand, combined to throw a scare into
a lot of people—which resulted in a far greater
turnout, partly deliberate and partly sincere, on
the part of people at such things as the candle¬
light ceremony for the Kent State people and the
following ceremony the next day.

Dr. Miller had a meeting of his deans and
other persons on primarily the question of whether
he should remain on campus that weekend, Fri¬
day and Saturday, or go on to the Board of Re¬
gents meeting where it was meeting in Elko. It
was the consensus of the group—not unanimous,
but certainly a majority consensus—that he
should go on. But we did develop a plan whereby
we requested each dean to request as many fac¬
ulty as possible to participate (or if not partici¬
pate, at least turn up) at every large-scale gap in
the students and faculty—partly to perhaps

EDWARD A. OLSEN

297

present another point of view just in personal
contacts, or share the points of views that would
be expressed by the students, to involve more
people in what, at that point, was a potentially
serious situation. Consequently, there was a sub¬
stantial turnout for the candlelight ceremony and
a substantial turnout the next day at lunch, in¬
cluding a number of people who ordinarily would
not go to those kinds of things.

What category of participan t in the various af¬
fairs—the students, the faculty, or outsiders—do
you think was most important in fomenting vio¬
lence on the campus?

Well, I don’t accept the position that there
was violence on the campus—I don’t accept that
premise to begin with. There were the two inci¬
dents of fire bombings, which certainly can be
classified as violence, but they weren’t people -
to-people violence. Violence against property,
perhaps. But for the disturbance in the Governor’s
Day thing, I think it was mainly students, although
there was certainly some faculty potential. There
was some faculty responsibility and some fac¬
ulty participation. But I think when it became evi¬
dent that it was getting beyond the point of lead¬
ership—that there was no real leadership in¬
volved—most of the faculty then quickly backed
off, and many of the students then, too. That had
left pretty much of a small group of, oh, hard¬
core students (I would say not more than a hun¬
dred) that continued beyond the realm of ordi¬
nary protest.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed now?

Well, for awhile, I think the peace movement,
as led by university students, is up against a rock
wall. I think the moratorium was effective last
October, primarily because it was orderly and
large. But I think the Governor’s Day thing and
the resultant out-of-perspective dissemination of
knowledge about it has put the peace movement
in bad shape at the moment.

Do you have other comments you ’d like to make
about this?

None that I think of, no.

Richard Patterson Jr.

June 3, 1970

For the record, do you want to give your name
and your home town?

Richard Gary Patterson, and I graduated from
high school at Garfield, California, but my par¬
ents now live in Riverside, California. I’ve been
at the University of Nevada for four years.

You’re a senior then? Graduating?

I need nine more units.

What’s your major?

Industrial management and business admin¬
istration.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

I really don’t know. Maybe because of Black
Week or something along that line, because I was
the chairman of Black Week for the BSU. Other
than that, I have no idea.

Well, you’ve been active on campus then?

Yes.

What was your personal reaction to President
Nixon’s decision to move troops into Cambodia ?

Personally, coming from a military family, I
thought it was something they possibly should
have done a long time ago. You know, militarily-
wise, it was a sound thing to do, but the method
in which he did it perturbed me. Because, as far
as I’m concerned, the way they moved into Cam¬
bodia . . . you know, people down in Mexico
could do something he didn’t like, and he could
move troops into there just as easily without con¬
sulting anyone or asking the masses’ opinion on
the situation. And that’s the paid, more or less,
that scared me or would cause me to react in any
type of demonstration or thing of this nature.

Well, again, in what way do you think this Cam¬
bodian decision was related to what happened
next on this campus, the University of Nevada,
Reno ?

300

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, as far as the Reno campus is concerned,
it was the type of stimulant that they needed to
get a larger number of people to rally around their
point, as far as the war was concerned. I think it
was indicative of the type of situation that hap¬
pened across the nation in this same situation.
So, everything they had been saying up until now
came true, you know; they kept telling them,
“Watch this. Watch this. Watch this.” And so, the
next thing they know, troops are in Cambodia with
the people of the United States having really no
voice in the decision whatsoever. It was a rally¬
ing point, and it was a big push that the organiz¬
ers on this campus needed, and it served just as
that.

OK. What was your reaction to events in other
parts of the country related to this Cambodia
decision—Kent State ?

Well, being a black individual in America, it
was really nice in a weird type way to see white
individuals feeling the frustration that blacks have
felt for years and years. I was extremely sympa¬
thetic with them, and I understood exactly the
reasons for this feeling inside of them and the
explosiveness that comes out of this type of situ¬
ation.

It wasn’t at all that new to me, and the
government’s reaction to this type of situation
wasn’t new to me, either. You know, they just
wait for time to come along and just cover it right
over and just keep on doing what they have been
doing and not changing nothing. So, personally,
I was extremely sympathetic with the situation,
and it was senseless, and there was no reason for
it. And when I thought to myself that had it been,
you know, three or four black students killed in a
similar type of situation, what would have hap¬
pened? And to try and think this question out ....

Yes, what to do about that ....

I really don’t think that much would have
been said or done about it—no, no, I really don’t.
Because they’d probably say these kids were on

a black power kick or something, you know, that
they really don’t have no feelings for the country
and all these typical things.

OK. Regarding the Governor’s Day activities here
on campus, what do you think of the arrange¬
ments for the observances? Or I’ll ask about three
or four and you can talk to all of them. What was
your reaction to the demonstrations? Did you feel
it was necessary to participate in any of the ac¬
tivities or demonstrations?

Yes.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration or the observances? And we
can go back over these one at a time if we want.

As far as the organization for this demonstra¬
tion, it wasn’t organized—those things for this
hour, this hour, this hour, this hour, or this hour.
The individuals, more or less, sent out pamphlets
and everything, and tried to get the people there.
And once they got the people—they were seeing
how many numbers they had, and so forth—that
would kind of guide them into the next step, the
next phase of their operation.

Had they had, say, two thousand people there,
they might not have had a Governor’s Day. But
they only had four hundred or five hundred or
whatever it was, so, therefore, they had to gear
down the type of methods that they wanted to
use and the type of demonstrations they wanted
to have during that day. I think for the number of
individuals that they had and the disorganization
that surrounded this whole thing, you know, a lot
of individuals did certain things like the individual
that laid down in front of the governor’s car. Now,
I do not think that that was a planned thing, as far
as the whole Governor’s Day demonstration was
concerned. It’s just that, you know, every indi¬
vidual takes off on their own thing. So, the orga¬
nizers really have no control over that type of
situation, and I don’t see where they should be
blamed for it.

RICHARD PATTERSON JR.

301

Well, what do you think about the organization
for Governor’s Day, I mean, from the university’s
point of view?

From the university point of view?

Yes.

[laughter] Like most administrations and in¬
dividuals, they bring it to the uniformed police
officers. They had approximately twenty-five or
thirty of them on alert that could have been walked
to the university within a three-minute period.
This shows the type of fear that’s instilled—and
people can tell when you're scared.

And to show force by bringing police offic¬
ers on a campus like this, the same type of inci¬
dent that happened at Kent State could have eas¬
ily happened here. Because you don’t know what
type of resentment that these police officers have
toward college students or blacks or Indians. You
know, this might be their big chance as far as
they’re concerned. And if they get it. I'm pretty
sure they would take it. And this just brings in an
unnecessary force that possibly could have led to
a situation that everybody would be ashamed of.

Do you feel. . . ? Now, Governor’s Day is some¬
thing that’s been going on every year for years.

Yes, I even participated in it for two years.

That was really what my question was, too, you
know: so, what did you make of the arrangements
for the observances in light of the Cambodia situ¬
ation? Do you think it should have been held or
canceled? [laughter]

Well, as far as I’m concerned, the adminis¬
tration was going to do what they wanted to do
anyway to show that they’re not going to be both¬
ered by anything that happens. They’re just go¬
ing to live in their own little world, surround
themselves by a fifty-foot fence, and not look
outside and be affected by anything that happens
in other parts of the world. It’s stupidity, and it’s
got to come home sooner or later.

Did you see the observances yourself? Were you
there?

I was there from beginning to end. From the
time the individual.... It just happened, you
know, and then I just followed it. I think a lot of
other people probably did the same thing, to see
what happened. And these are, in a lot of cases,
the people that get hurt.

What should have been the reaction, say, of the
ROTC or the demonstrators to the conflict that
did develop? Did you feel that people reacted as
they should have ?

Yes, but I just think people act instinctively
when they get into a situation like this. The ROTC
and, say, the administration, and the people that
were out there really didn’t want to push the dem¬
onstrators to see who was going to budge. And
then, again, the demonstrators didn’t do anything
to really push the administration to see if they
would budge. So it was kind of a stand-off type
thing.

As far as individuals in the stands are con¬
cerned, the people that came to see the obser¬
vance, their insensitivity to the situation was re¬
ady evident, because any time they start flipping
the bird to other people—you know what I
mean—they’re dropping themselves down just
as low as they think those other people are. And
so, you know, what’s inside of them really shows,
too. It’s a good thing to see these so-called middle-
class bourgeois so-and-sos just drop down to that
level. It just shows that they are no better than
the individuals that were out there trying to get
their point across.

OK. What was your reaction to the violence that
followed: the bombing of ROTC and then the
bombing of the Hobbit Hole?

Yes, that really surprised me. But the thing
is . . . had that type of bombing occurred, say, four
weeks earlier when the blacks on campus were
kind of causing a disturbance type thing, they
would have been directly blamed for it. When it

302

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

happened when it did, they didn’t know who did
it. [laughter] So, I don’t know. The reason for a
bombing of this type is just—like I said earlier—
an individual that’s just out there doing what he
thinks is best, and it may be rational or irrational.
I really don’t know what type of individual this
is.

Of course, like a lot of people have noticed
in the past weeks, the bombing, as far as the
Hobbit Hole is concerned, almost stemmed di¬
rectly from Senator Slattery. Because I heard that
statement on TV the night before myself, that
“The cowboys should be allowed to run these
hippies off campus.” Now, what kind of rational
individual is that? That means he’s just a reac¬
tionary type individual, and this is bad. He’s twice
as dangerous as one of these hippies, because it’s
really easy for him to get in the newspaper and
on TV where the mass media can hear him. And
to condone these types of actions from, say, an
individual that’s sitting on the fence trying to
decide whether he’s going to do this or do that, it
gives him this incentive to go ahead and do what
he was going to do. Whereas had an individual
like Senator Slattery not made this statement, an
incident like the Hobbit Hole would not have
come about.

I see. What category of participant—student or
faculty or outsiders—do you feel was most effec¬
tive in fomenting the violence that erupted? Do
you think outsiders were important?

Not really being down, down, down with the
heart.... The individual that organized this type
of demonstration, or knowing who’s an outsider
and who’s not an outsider, I really couldn’t say. I
know the faculty members as a whole, I don’t
think, would condone this type of action, because
this is their place of work, also.

For the students that go to school here, and
the type of feelings that they have, what they’re
frying to get across to a lot of people (especially
through boycotting classes, say, one day) more
so than anything else is that there are millions
and thousands upon thousands of people in Viet¬
nam that are being killed over there; there is land

that has just been made useless through bomb¬
ings; there is just suffering and destitution that’s
hit that country. And here we are going from day
to day—not having any feelings or any concept
of the type of suffering that’s going on over there,
and just going to class and not being bothered by
anything. By boycotting classes and, you know,
being able to suffer one day or so, we can have
some small viewing of what is really going on
over there and the magnitude of the situation.

For the Americans that sit back here, as a
whole, I would say they wouldn’t even consider
the people over there their equals. Those are hu¬
man beings that are over there, and as a whole, I
don’t think we consider them human beings. So
the organizers of these demonstrations, I think,
are trying to bring some of this suffering to us, so
we’ll know what’s going on over there and maybe
get individuals to want to get out of there a lot
quicker.

When you don’t know what’s going on over
there, or the type of suffering that’s going on over
there, it’s, “Big deal. Let them keep on doing it.”
So, I think this was the kind of mood. I really
don’t think that these students were more or less
frying to bring about violence with the demon¬
stration; they were just trying to bring off this
awareness of the magnitude of the situation in
Southeast Asia and the type of things that can
happen in the future if it’s not stopped.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence or in cooling off the
situation that developed from the bombings? Any¬
thing that happened here on campus—what
cooled it? [laughter]

You mean, why wasn’t there a follow-up to
Governor’s Day and another thing, say, the next
week—another big demonstration?

Yes, yes.

As usual, at the University of Nevada—fear.
Fear of the establishment, because this is an ex¬
tremely conservative place. Fear of reprimand by
their teachers. Just, I think, fear in these students

RICHARD PATTERSON JR.

303

is the main thing that did it. And then, realizing
the type of situation that they’re in finally—that
at any time, the administration has thirty police
officers just waiting to come down here and
[makes popping noise] knock somebody on the
head. I think it just got to them.

Now, had they had individuals here to fight
these types of things off .... And this just might
be evident the next time something like this comes
about—you know, students that transfer in, a turn¬
over student. Maybe the individuals that come
next year can organize or be able to fight these
types of things off. You know, students were prob¬
ably scared of being put in jail or not having any
bail, fear that they won’t have a lawyer if they
get put in jail on disturbing of the peace and these
type of things. So maybe somebody will come
here next time with a lot of money that will say,
“Don’t worry about being put in jail. Let’s go
ahead and do it. We’ll get you out.”

So, I think it was a fear factor that cooled the
situation down.

Cooled it off, yes. Well, then how do you think
events here on campus affect the university’s im¬
age with outsiders?

Oh, man. See, that’s the thing. They worried
about what people that don’t know anything about
the university think. I would say the students do
not control the university or have any say about
it. As usual, the outsiders, the people that do con¬
trol this university are now, seeing that the stu¬
dents are gone, out doing their dirty work, as far
as I’m concerned.

They’re going to make a new student bill of
rights. The next thing you know, students will
come back, and if they spit on the sidewalk, if
they say the wrong thing at the wrong time, or
cuss—you know, a large number of things—
they’ll be able to be kicked out of school. Being
as conservative as the Board of Regents is and
having the type of influence on the outside that
they do have, there’s going to be a pretty tough
student code next year. And I really would hate
to see this happen, but if it does it could, you
know, bring about a lot more resentment.

I don’t think the student body president, Ms.
[Frankie] Sue Del Papa, is really doing every¬
thing that she should be doing in the students’
behalf at this stage of the game. Because she is
the student representative, she should think like
the students and do what is conducive to a learn¬
ing atmosphere for the students, and I don’t think
she’s doing this right now. She should be down
on their throats and yelling and just making as
much noise as she can to try and keep them from
telling us how we should act in our own environ¬
ment.

They come in once every two months or once
a month and, you know, pay the bills or do what¬
ever it is and then zip back out. They’re not the
ones that have to go here day in and day out. So,
how can they say what we should do? They went
to school a long time ago. Like they say, the times
have changed, and this is 1970 and not 1935.

Well, do you think, then, that we shouldn't worry
too much about the image? What function does
the university have in focusing public opinion,
say, on war and student demands and support?

Well, as far as student demands and the war
is concerned, I think that. . . OK, the conserva¬
tiveness of this campus is always going to be
there. So, therefore, for the administration and
Board of Regents to try and put up laws and bar¬
riers to keep a few individuals (which they are, I
would say, a few individuals and a minority of
the students on campus) from partaking in their
type of demonstrations is really a hindrance to
the educational process as a whole. Because how
are these other 90 percent of the students that do
live in this captive world going to find out about
things that are going on in the outside world?
Because the conservative newspaper isn’t going
to tell them. The TV is not going to tell them. So
there has to be a group of individuals that can
relate these outside ideas to these other people,
so that they then can decide—and not go through
life just healing this one-sided situation.

So, it’s really a valuable thing to the univer¬
sity to have these individuals here. It’s just part
of the learning process to hear both sides of the

304

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

argument and then decide, you know. But to hear
one side, one side, one side constantly is a detri¬
ment to the individual in the long-run, because
how many of these individuals are going to stay
in Reno, you know, the rest of their lives? A lot
of them are going to go out into the world, and
it’s going to be rough on them because of their
lack of knowledge about blacks, the war—-just a
large number of things. So, by having the BSU
and Black Week and then the people demonstrat¬
ing against the war, these types of things are
brought to them, and it’s good, as far as I’m con¬
cerned.

And then the university does have a job to do in
focusing public opinion. By these things, you
mean you get it into the newspapers, and into the
news, somehow or other?

Yes, and letting the other side be told. And if
nothing else, well, why try and suppress this type
of communication, as far as I’m concerned?

Yes, OK. Do you feel that academic freedom —
the issues of academic freedom are involved in
participating in demonstrations?

And not being reprimanded by a teacher
or ... ?

Well, academic freedom for teachers or students.
However you want to approach it.

Well, yes. I really think what they’re doing
to Paul Adamian and Fred Maher is really stu¬
pid. It’s just a take-off from the Jesse Sattwhite
incident, as far as I’m concerned. You know,
they’re still looking for that big scapegoat to show
that, “We’ve got the power, and you step out of
line—boom. That’s what’s going to happen to
you.” So, dang, they have all the cards, there’s
no doubt about it. And they keep throwing them
down. But the ones that they throw down and
don’t pick back up, you know, the students will
have them. So it’s just that they’re trying to show
the type of power that they do have and to make
a martyr—or not necessarily a martyr—but to

victimize whoever steps in their way, and it’s re¬
ally bad.

So, as far as academic freedom, there really
isn’t any, as far - as I can see it. Because when you
do say what you think in a class, especially a stu¬
dent, the teacher says, “I got my Ph.D., and I can
say what I want to say.” Who the hell is he? Who
is he? You know, where has he been? I mean,
how many books has he written? The last thing
he probably wrote was his dissertation for his
Ph.D., nine times out of ten. The ones that do
have the sensitivity to the problem and the un¬
derstanding are right there and writing current
material and are not just trying to, you know, use
their tenure as a tool for saying, “I know every¬
thing.”

This type of individual really causes a lot of
trouble in classrooms. There should be, possibly,
a new evaluation of this tenure thing, because
there are teachers that come to school just to earn
their pay, and that’s it. The less they have to do,
the better. And so, to give them the tool of
tenureship as a means of, you know, not doing
anything is just as bad as ... .

Do you feel, then, that the younger professors are
more sensitive to the current problems and less
inclined to be part of the . . . ?

Establishment?

[laughter] Yes, whatever you want to call it.

Yes. And I’d say in nine out of ten cases that
this would be the type of situation that was evi¬
dent. This program where they bring in outside
professors for a year—you know, in sociology
and political science—is a tremendous program,
because a lot of students are really waking up
and hearing new ideas that would have never been
brought to them through any other means. These
are high-quality individuals that know what
they’re talking about, and they stimulate thought
in the student. That’s what has to happen: to make
them think for themselves. Yes, sure, we know
other people’s opinion, but to make an individual

RICHARD PATTERSON JR.

305

think is a heck of a process, and to appreciate it
is the thing.

That kind of leads into the next question of what
you were just talking to there. How can the stu¬
dents be effective politically? Or should they at¬
tempt to influence political or government poli¬
cies?

Yes, they should, by all means ....

They should?

Because five years from now they’re going
to be out in the same rat race that people five
years prior to them are in now. And, say, the thing
is—had their parents taken up the stick, they
might not have to. So, in order to keep their kid
from going through what they are going through
now, damn straight they should be out there. Be¬
cause it’s going to be their world and their kids’
world. “What type of world do you want for your
kids?” is the type of question that these people
that are sitting back should ask themselves.

Do you want your kid to go over there? You
know, you paid to have your kid sent over there
and killed. And they don’t realize it. It’s your tax
dollars that buy them that uniform and buy them
that gun. When you pay $2,000 a year in taxes,
that’s a one-way trip to Vietnam. These people
don’t realize it, and so they keep your kid from
going through the same type of mental strain,
because that’s what it is: trying to figure out, “Are
they going to get me? Are they going to get me?”
These types of things. “I really don’t know what
to plan; I don’t know what to do. Should I get in
the air guard? Because if I get in the air guard,
will the war be over tomorrow? And then I’ll just
be in the air guard.”

These are rough decisions for an individual
twenty years old, twenty-one years old with no
help from no one. You know, what can this per¬
son hear? “Well, I went in the war,” you know.
But that was a different war. I think that the points
that the young people and the old people agree
upon are becoming more and more common. You
know, nobody wants this war now. You know.

the large percentage of the people don’t want the
war. OK, so they agree on that, and they agree
that this war is like no other war. So the more
things that they can agree on or show the old—
not old, but the establishment—that they agree
on, the more they can convince them to come over
to their type of thinking: boom, get this man out
of here, or vote for this individual. You know,
those types of things.

Well, how then are you most effective as a stu¬
dent? Do you work through the political system
that exists, or do you demonstrate against it?

OK. Demonstrations of most unions . . . who
are they when they picket after they strike? You
know, they strike. They get violent in a lot of
cases. It’s been known for unions to get violent.
But I think, as a whole, most Americans really
don’t mind demonstrations. It’s just when the vio¬
lence, the rock throwing does take place that they
do get irate, and that stops all communication
whatsoever. It just stops.

So to demonstrate is a means, but to follow
up that demonstration by talk-ins and teach-ins:
those are the things that I think are really effec¬
tive. And to go to a local group of a Kiwanis Club
or Elks Club and talk to the individuals with three
or four people and be polite to each other.

You know, if he has a good point, recognize
it. Don’t sit up on the throne and say, “I know it
all,” because you don’t, either. You know, you’re
just taking his place. So, exchange ideas and
thoughts, and have a feeling for their feelings.
Recognize them as human beings, and tty to per¬
suade them to vote the way you want them to
vote, and register to vote yourselves (you know,
everyone that’s twenty-one).

That’s why I really think that this is going to
be an extremely interesting summer to see these
students who have been picketing and the peace
rally in November. Are they going to take off to
the beaches and to the mountains and zip off to
Europe with their parents and these types of
things, or are they going to stick with it? Do they
really care that much? And it’s going to be a real
test for them.

306

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

That’s what I was going to ask you: where’s the
peace movement in this area headed? Can you
guess?

Well, as far as this area is concerned, I would
say most of the individuals were from California
that tried to stimulate these types of thoughts in a
lot of these people. So, as far as Reno for the
summer is concerned, it’s going to be good old
conservative Reno—you know, let’s get the tour¬
ists now that the students are gone.

But in the meantime, the administration and
individuals like that are going to try and find the
methods to deal with these types of things the
coming year. With no pressure on them they can
devote all their time to this instead of just paid of
it. So, there is no known peace movement in Reno
as such.

You don ’tfeel that it is ... .

Just from what I can see, no. But then again,
like I said. I’m not out there with them strike for
strike.

Do you have any other comments on this subject
or any related subject [laughter] that you ’d like
put on your tape ?

Yes. Well, the University of Nevada is re¬
ally ... in a lot of cases their values are really
backwards as far as keeping teachers that really
are effective during the learning process and get¬
ting rid of those that really aren’t effective. Be¬
cause they have a lot of young teachers that have
master’s, say, and it requires a Ph.D. So they’ll
get rid of the individual with a master’s and keep
the individual with the Ph.D., who doesn’t nec¬
essarily teach anything.

The students have no say in this type of rela¬
tionship between themselves and their teachers,
you know. If the teacher is good, I mean, why
can’t they keep them? It’s really hard for them to
understand this. You know. Dr. Hiller is a victim
of the system, because his teaching methods were
archaic in a lot of cases, but he stimulated thought
in the individual. And in most cases, that’s the

main thing. That’s why I feel that engineers, and
people in these types of work that one-plus-one
is always two, really can’t deal with the type of
situations that happen in the world today when
one-plus-one comes up three. You know, it’s not
real, and they just can’t relate to it. And it’s go¬
ing to be really rough for them later on in life
unless they go up to Carson City and work there
the rest of their lives.

So the whole structure of these different de¬
partments is really going to have to be looked at.
The Business Department—being a business ad¬
ministration student, I feel that they’re really ne¬
glectful of this type of situation.

Me, myself—they’re not teaching me to deal
with the problems that I’m going to meet out there
because I’m black. OK, so I have, say, five black
individuals in my department and, say, four or
five white individuals under me who really don’t
know, who think I’m inferior to them, or these
types of things. How am I going to deal with these
types of people? They don’t teach me. You know,
what am I supposed to do? And as far as the white
individual that graduates from the Business De¬
partment, what is he going to do if he has a black
supervisor? You know, all his life, he’s been sit¬
ting over here, and, dang, he’s on top of every¬
thing, but then, you know, a black person is his
supervisor. How is he going to deal with this prob¬
lem? Are they teaching him that? You know, is
the man just better than him—I mean, he knows
the job better than him? What’s he going to do
with his black subordinates? You know, “I don’t
want to work today. I don’t like you. Let me meet
you around the corner.” What’s he going to do
with these types of situations? So, these people
are just being short-changed in a lot of ways just
because they’re in Reno, and these types of prob¬
lems aren’t evident right here.

It’s just constantly being thrown into their
face that because the structure of this place is such
that as long as you’re white, you got it made, when
they go out into the other part of the world it’s
going to be rough on them. It’s going to be rough
on them, and I really hate to see it. That’s all I
have to say.

Gary Peltier

June 9, 1970

If you’ll say your name, your residence, and your
position.

Gary Peltier, Reno, Nevada; faculty senate
chairman, 1969-1970; associate professor of edu¬
cation.

OK. Why do you think you were chosen to be in-
terviewed?

Probably because of my particular role as
chairman of the faculty senate in a very trying
period, [laughter]

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to go into Cambodia with troops?

I had to agree with many of those who looked
upon it as a widening of the war in the Far East.
That was essentially my reaction—essentially
negative.

In what way do you think this Cambodia deci¬
sion was related to what happened next on our
campus?

It’s difficult to establish a causal relationship,
but I'm sure it was a factor, particularly for those
students who are concerned and really involved
with antiwar kinds of activities. (I’m trying to
recall at what stage did the Kent State thing . . .?
That was after.) It’s difficult to say, but I would
have predicted that there would probably have
been a Governor’s Day demonstration such as
there has been the last couple of years, even with¬
out Cambodia in Asia. It probably gave it a little
more fervor. A little spice, [laughter]

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country also related to the Cambodia deci¬
sion?

Essentially very favorable. It’s nuts in a coun¬
try like this when you get a lot of people essen¬
tially saying the same thing in many parts of the
nation. It’s kind of a marvelous display of soli¬
darity that you don’t get very often in a diverse
nation that’s developed, [laughter] I thought it was
a very happy kind of event, really. The political
process at work, you know.

Good. Turning now to the Governor’s Day ac¬
tivities here: what did you think of the arrange¬
ments for observing Governor’s day?

308

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Gary Peltier, 1972.

Well, as I understand it, they tried to make it
less of a military day this year and more of a
governor’s day: that is, honoring the governor and
giving him a reception and so on, and in some
way play down the military aspects of it, which I
thought was a good idea. And I think it came from
Hill, Colonel Hill. By arrangements, you mean
like the physical arrangements of having it where
they had it and this kind of thing?

Well, and having it ... .

When they did?

When they did, or at all, or whether the motor¬
cade should have gone where it did, or whatever
you want to say about it.

Oh, OK. In retrospect, obviously the timing
was bad, but at the same time, I have to agree
with those who say, “If you’ve got a university
function scheduled, you go ahead with it no mat¬
ter who’s threatening to do what.” Because then
if you don’t, it’s just blackmailing the university
in saying, “You can’t do this kind of thing.” If
it’s a regular scheduled university activity, you
do it.

The motorcade going through the campus—
I have philosophical objections to motorcades
through here anyway, or anything with a motor. I
don’t know. It might have been bad judgment—I
don’t know. I do know that there were pretty good
police kind of back-up people available for the
Governor’s Day activities, which could have been
called at any time, assuming crisis proportions
would have developed. And I think it’s to the
credit of people like President Miller that they
didn’t call the police, because there would have
been a lot of people hurt—not just name-calling,
but, you know, people roughed up. So, I think,
given the circumstances, we probably handled it
fairly well. There were emergency precautions
available. Well, if that group would have only,
you know, marched around a couple of times and
sat down and been quiet, then it would have been
no problem.

Yes. Well, that’s the next question, I believe. What
was your reaction to the demonstration?

I didn’t see it. I was not an eye witness. My
initial reaction was very negative. Well, I’ll
qualify that. The idea of going around marching
and carrying your placard and so forth, it’s per¬
fectly all right with me—democracy at work. The
problem ensued, I think, in where, once having
marched around twice, the demonstration group
didn’t sit down and let the activities go on from
that point. If they would have, I doubt if we would
have got more than a small paragraph in the pa¬
per. But the idea of name-calling and interrupt¬
ing the ceremony, that got to me—and just disre¬
spect to some of the individuals on the platform.

GARY PELTIER

309

including the president, student body president,
many of our local college people, and the parents
of a boy who had been killed in Vietnam and were
giving out a scholarship. All these kinds of things,
I think, were definitely out of line and have hurt
this university more than we’d like to admit.

Did you feel it was necessary to participate in
any of the demonstrations or observances?

I did not on the Governor’s Day thing. Nor¬
mally, I do not go out and demonstrate for causes
for philosophical, moral, and other kinds of rea¬
sons. When you’re a college professor, it’s tricky,
[laughter] You know the problem.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various people involved up at the stadium:
the demonstrators, the ROTC, and the adminis¬
tration ?

Well, essentially, I feel that the ceremony such
as it is should have been allowed to proceed as
scheduled with a minimum of interruption and
this kind of thing. I kind of get a little upset with
these kids who say, “Now, do your own thing,”
but keep insisting that everybody do their own
thing. There’s room in our country for all kinds
of groups to meet and do whatever they want,
but they don’t necessarily need to have educa¬
tion from anybody. I don’t know if that answers
your question. That’s what comes to mind.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the fire bombing?

First of all, incredulousness; secondly, ratio¬
nalization. [laughter] I’ve almost convinced my¬
self now that it was either the University of Ne¬
vada students, or it was a small handful of stu¬
dents that I know are violent, that are prone to
violence, and advocate violence as a way of
change. In many ways, unbelievable.

But, in general, anything that breaks the
law—and it’s a civil disobedience up at that
level—I’m opposed to. I don’t see that as an ef¬

fective way of making change. It’s tactically stu¬
pid.

What category of participant in the various
affairs here—the students, the faculty, or outsid¬
ers—do you think was most important in foment¬
ing violence on campus?

I’d say it’s impossible to pick out one factor.
They’re all intermingled; they’re all factors. But
I don’t think you can say one was any more im¬
portant than the other.

Were outsiders important?

Yes, but I don’t think we really want to ... .
There were five or six of them whom we could
identify. But I think that’s the easy out. It’s easier
to say, “Well, somebody else did this, and it’s
obviously some foreigner, some intruder, some
people like that.” And that may or may not be
true. I mean, to me, the saner course is to say it
could have been somebody on our campus. It
could have been outsiders. We don’t know.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
cooling off the violence that followed it?

I think many of the rap sessions held by stu¬
dent groups, by faculty and student groups, by
administration and student groups, and the ac¬
tivities of the Center were very effective—just a
general discussion of the problem and some of
the issues, I think, wherever and whenever it oc¬
curred. We made a concerted effort to get faculty
members out to attend some of these things briefly
after the fire bomb thing, and many of them
showed up. There was one faculty member who
told me, “I didn’t know that groups like this ex¬
isted around here.” It’s educational for them,
[laughter] Some of them aren’t going to get there
very often. I’ll say it had to be the discussions.

How did the events on campus affect the
university’s image, so-called, with people on the
outside?

310

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Disastrously. Are you speaking of this par¬
ticular event or just events in general?

Well, this event, of course, is central, but events
in general, too, if you care to discuss it.

If there’s probably one common fallacy in
thinking in our society, it’s generalization on the
basis of insufficient evidence, and we all do it.
But you can see this, well, all the time—I’ll get
comments. If somebody drives by over here on
Ninth and sees a drunken kid or a dirty kid and
pretty obviously a university student, that prob¬
ably hurts our image about as bad as such things
as fire bombings. But the problem, as I said, you
know, is generalization on the basis of insuffi¬
cient evidence. Most people don’t know what’s
happening at the university. They take the publi¬
cized parts, the few things that they do see, and
generalize from it, which is unfortunate. But we
ought to be able to predict that and watch out for
that, [laughter] And that’s the general kind of
thing.

President Miller said one time—and I think
this is an accurate observation—that the commu¬
nity, by and large, is proud of us, but they have to
be reminded. And I think that that’s quite true.
There’s no question that such events as
Governor’s Day have hurt the image of the uni¬
versity in the state and have really raised up some
mindless forces of repression that are pretty ob¬
vious in the last month.

What function can the university have in focus¬
ing public opinion?

I think, by and large, we need efficient pub¬
lic relations. The things we do do, you know, such
as receptions after graduation and some of the
things we do are fine, and so we probably need a
more active town-gown kind of relationship de¬
veloping. Some of these things we’re doing now
through the Center—for example, going out and
speaking at churches. They have three sessions
of town-gown kind of exchanges, discussions,
coming up during June, which are probably some

of the things we should have done a long time
ago. So, it’s really kind of up to us to make our
own image.

We try to educate the students all the time:
you know, “Whatever you do reflects on the uni¬
versity,” and so forth. And it looks to me, after
some of the last events, we have to educate the
faculty, too. At least some of them don’t seem to
know or care—or both—that what they do af¬
fects the image of the university in various ways,
[laughter]

Yes, yes. Are issues of academic freedom involved
in participating in a demonstration ?

That’s a tricky question. It’s a question, prob¬
ably, of the amount of participation or the degree
of participation. I think most people would agree
that one’s academic freedom allows and perhaps
even requires somebody to demonstrate in favor
of a particular cause as long as the demonstra¬
tion is a fairly reasonable kind of thing. I don’t
think anybody would quarrel with that.

The problem is a very tricky one of “when
does a professor become a citizen?” Like, for
example, if this would have occurred at the Cen¬
tennial Coliseum on the day when the university
was in recess kind of thing, then I think the uni¬
versity would wash their whole hands of it. But
if he’s a citizen, they don’t want to have anything
to do with a faculty member who participates.
Unfortunately, the society won’t let you do that,
[laughter]

I don’t know if you were here a few years
ago when a philosophy professor [Erling
Skoipen] went down and picketed the legislature,
and, you know, with no avowed affiliation to the
university or anything, but in about two minutes
everybody seems to be at the university profes¬
sor: “What’s he doing here?” et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera.

Academic freedom ... I really don’t agree
with the recent pronouncements of the Board of
Regents, for example, or the chairman of the
board, that one discusses only those things that
are germane to the particular class.

GARY PELTIER

311

I think that probably most of us do. On the
other hand, I would bet that after the Governor’s
Day thing, most classes probably discussed that.
And, to me, that was very central to the educa¬
tional process—not irrelevant and not related to
course work. It’s what it’s all about. So, in terms
of that kind of thing, there may well be some aca¬
demic freedom problems arising.

I don’t think, out of the specific demonstra¬
tions for Governor’s Day, it’s academic freedom
particularly. But there are some real classroom
kinds of questions that are developing—definitely
academic freedom kinds of problems. I’ve had
people in the town tell me that one of the best
things that could happen to us now would be to
get on the AAUP sanction list, because that would
attract to our campus the kind of professors they’d
like to have here, [laughter]

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally, or should they tty to influence governmen¬
tal decisions?

To my mind there’s no question as to whether
they should. I think they should. The question of
“how do they do so effectively” is the problem. I
think we’ve seen some good examples, such as
the student move on pollution of Lake Tahoe. So,
it’s probably a pretty effective political activity.
It’s probably a question of channeling those en¬
ergies into constructive kinds of political action
rather than destructive political action.

The other basic problem is that it’s a big prob¬
lem if you have too many people speaking for
the university. There has to be some kind of co¬
ordination from this. Otherwise, the university
finds itself supporting all sorts of causes, or at
least its name being used in all sorts of causes,
which it may or may not wish to support. So, by
and large, I think you have to say that someone—
some man, usually the president—speaks for the
university, but he can delegate and use various
kinds of groups or faculty that may be needed or
may want to participate in a given kind of politi¬
cal instance. I hate to see, you know, fifty differ¬
ent groups out at the legislature all saying they

have university backing, and all spouting some
cause. This chaos can also damage our rather frag¬
ile image a great deal. So, yes, they should. It’s a
question of how to do it nicely—nicely, but ef¬
fectively.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed?

It’s tough to predict. I suspect if President
Nixon gives in like he says he’s going to, we’ll
see a lessening of the fervor. And then, of course,
in just good old time we’ll see a lessening of the
feelings and so on. I don’t know. My guess would
be that unless something rather tragic or monu¬
mental happens, it’ll kind of die off, die down at
least to its pre-invasion-of-Cambodia level, which
was, you know, not too active. It’s interesting that
in most of the studies on college campus disor¬
ders, usually about one out of four campuses will
have the Vietnam situation as a reason for a dis¬
ruption. The more usual one is race. That’s the
chief one.

Do you have other comments you'd like to make
about this whole situation?

In many ways. I’m upset about the rather
over-reaction on the paid of the general public, I
guess. But I also understand it, and I could also
have predicted it. There’s no question that (in
what, the last few years?) most every university
that’s had an uprising of some type has suffered
in the next legislature financially, if not also in
terms of restrictions or rules about behavior on
campus and what students and professors do or
do not do. So, if the past few years are any indi¬
cation, we’ll get the same kind of treatment in
the 1971 legislature. Did you see where the aca¬
demic senate at the University of California was
wiped out in the budget hearing—$409,000?
That’s the handwriting on the wall.

You know, probably the moral I got out of
the whole thing is that the university has to be
careful how it affects changes and what kind of
causes it espouses and what kinds of things it re-

312

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

ally does want to commit its resources to. We have
a lot of talent, a lot of good people, a lot of people
who do things. Probably some education is needed
about how to do it effectively. But you can also
sympathize with a lot of frustration that people
get as, you know, really a boon to violence or an
excuse for it. I’m sure there are groups in our
society that have said for a long time, “You know,
we’d like to do it this way,” and asked politely
and asked politely and asked politely and never
got an answer—a satisfactory one. So, finally you
are forced by just frustration to get to more vio¬
lent means if this is true. Teachers’ groups, for
example, who are not prone to violence but who
get pushed that far, might eventually—might be
a lesson for some of the government, [laughter]
They know it, proud as they are.

My hope is that this one series of incidents
doesn’t cripple the university for any great length
of time. But my educated guess is it’s going to
hurt us in the near future. I’m almost positive of
that. I think that’s where they always, you know,
kind of come.

Edward Pine

June 2, 1970

So, for the record if you’ll say your name, your
residence, and your connection with the univer¬
sity.

Edward L. Pine; Reno, Nevada; business
manager and director of physical plant.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed for this program?

I assume because I happened to be at the
Governor’s Day observance in the stadium.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia ?

I was in accord with it. I feel that the only
solution, if we’re going to win, is to get to the
source of the problems in which they’re being
logistically supported. I’m sure that even if it was
other countries that should have been bombed a
long time ago, I am in accord with getting the
action over with as soon as possible and as early
as possible. The sooner they get to the source of
where the material is coming from, logistically,

they’ll not be able to be supplied, and then it’ll
be a termination of our hostilities.

How do you think the Cambodia decision was
related to what happened next on our campus?

I really don’t believe that the Cambodian in¬
cident had very much actually to do with the prob¬
lems on our campus. Although the few that were
involved indicated that it did actually, I believe
in my own opinion that they really didn’t under¬
stand then that they had very little to do as far as
Cambodia was concerned.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodian affair?

Well, I was disappointed because we cannot
solve a problem if we are not willing to support
him. We have, for a great number of years, been
opposed to the communist theory and their com¬
munist procedures, and we lent our support to
many countries. And if we are actually in sup¬
port of an overthrow of some of the powers that
the communist people are seeking in other coun¬
tries, the only thing for us to do is really to sup¬
port those countries to try to overcome the com-

314

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Edward Pine, 1970s.

munist advances. And I’m in favor of us trying to
resolve a problem where all people can live fairly
and with the same degree of certainty that we in
the United States can.

Yes, good. Turning now to the Governor’s Day
activities: what did you think of the arrangements
made for the observance?

I was in favor of it, of all of the arrangements.
I had some small part in it. I felt that now we
made one or two slight errors in the arrangements,
but I was in favor of the arrangements.

What was your reaction to the demonstration ?

I was extremely disappointed in approxi¬
mately 150 or 200 students and most disappointed
in 10 or 11 faculty members that I saw involved
in the proceedings.

Did you feel it was necessary to participate your¬
self in any of the activities or the demonstrations?

No, I was opposed to participating in the dem¬
onstration. In the activities, yes, I was in favor of
the activities, and I would support it any way that
I possibly could.

What did you think was the most effective part of
the demonstrations and the observance of
Governor’s Day?

As far as I was concerned, the most effective
part was the awarding of various prizes and
awards to those cadets who had performed satis¬
factorily over their period of service and the
awards that they received. I was very much in
favor of it, and I thought that, as far as I'm con¬
cerned, that that was the most impressive part.

Yes—and of the demonstration ?

I was disappointed completely. I believe that
one of the areas that really set the demonstration
off was a small group of people that came to the
southeast part of the area and sat on the grass.
And then gradually the people coming out of the
stands walking across and forming on the parade
ground with the cadets was the one particular part
of the demonstration that upset me. One other
thing that really upset me was a young man who
blew taps while Mr. and Mrs. Wisham were mak¬
ing an award to a cadet in honor of their son. And
I felt that was very, very much out of place, and I
really objected to that.

What should have been the reaction of the ROTC,
the reaction of the demonstrators, the reaction of
the university administration to this conflict that
developed at Governor’s Day?

Well, I believe that the cadets, the adminis¬
tration handled themselves favorably. I know that
the administration had made an agreement with
the demonstrators that they would be permitted
to walk around the track three times and then dis-

EDWARD PINE

315

perse or to go to the Manzanita Bowl area. They
did not keep their word. And I believe that they’re
the ones that really caused the major problems. I
think that the ROTC and the administration were
more than fair and handled themselves favorably.

OK. What was your reaction to the violence that
followed Governor’s Day—the fire bombing?

I’m very much upset about it. This country
cannot survive with violence, and especially of
that type. I’m greatly opposed to it. I’m in favor
of law and order and peaceful assemblage of
people, and I just am greatly opposed to it. I would
hope that they would be able to eventually deter¬
mine who was at the seat of it and let them suffer
the necessary penalties for the damage that was
done, not only to the building or the structures,
but to the image of the University of Nevada.

What category of participant — students, faculty,
or ou tsiders—do you feel was most importan t in
stirring up the violence?

Well, I really believe that we only had maybe
150 or 200 students. We had 10 or 11 faculty
members involved, some of which claimed that
they were acting as police or retardants or some
such arrangement, but I’m not in accord with that.
I believe that they could have had their demon¬
stration in the Manzanita Bowl and let the other
people participate in theirs. The faculty members
that marched, even though they were peaceful,
had no real right in marching. I believe that they
should have assembled in some other area. If they
wanted to cause some difficulty, fine. But I don’t
think that they should have acted as police. I don’t
think they should have even participated in it. I
was opposed to faculty and any student leaders. I
did not see very many student leaders, but I was
violently opposed to the faculty being involved
in any way.

Were outsiders important?

I don’t know that there were any number of
outsiders. I really couldn’t tell. I’m not that fa¬

milial - with them. I did notice, as I said, some
faculty and many students. Whether there were
outsiders in it or not, I really couldn’t tell.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence or in cooling off the
situation after the fire bombing?

Well, I believe that the operation of continu¬
ing the university on its usual sound basis was
one of the things that helped calm things down. I
believe that the president going to the Board of
Regents meeting and supporting the university
before the Board of Regents was of great sup¬
port. And then I believe that those faculty who
participated in the observance in Manzanita Bowl
afterwards, the next day, were pretty important
in keeping the temperature of the campus down.
I believe that the faculty and the chairman and
various people involved with the students and the
conservative students were the most important
in keeping things down after the fire bombing.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image outside?

Normally, the university has a very fine im¬
age. I believe that we have suffered greatly from
the Governor’s Day demonstration and the events
following it, primarily from the taxpayers point
of view. I believe that the taxpayers are consider¬
ably upset, and probably we’ll not really know
how much until the next session of the legisla¬
ture meets, and our budgets come before the vari¬
ous financial committees in the legislature. I think
it’s going to damage us. I think that there’s a pos¬
sibility that we will not receive the appropria¬
tions that we need, and that we probably will not
receive the appropriations that we would normally
receive (plus a percentage of increase) because
of some of the problems that have occurred.

What can the university do to help in focusing
public opinion?

I believe that those that are vitally interested
in the university should endeavor to speak be-

316

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

fore groups, their friends, explain to them as
nearly as they can what occurred—and point out
to them that the very, very small percentage of
people that were involved is not a true picture of
the university campus. They should try to point
out to them what is actually occurring on the uni¬
versity campus in a favorable light, in place of
the bad publicity that the mass media (television,
newspapers) released to the public and then very,
very little of the good things that are actually oc¬
curring. The only way we can get it out is by word
of mouth by those people that are really inter¬
ested in providing the aspects of the campus life
to the downtown people or the people through¬
out the state.

Do you feel that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participating in a demonstration?

No, I really don’t. At least my interpretation
of academic freedom is different than that. I feel
that academic freedom gives an instructor or a
professor the right to teach in his class as he sees
fit on relevant material, and that does not involve
academic freedom in public demonstrations and
the type of event that occurred on Governor’s Day
and shortly thereafter.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally, or should they attempt to influence gov-
ernmental decisions?

Certainly they should attempt to influence
governmental agencies. I believe that the most
logical way is in a calm, quiet manner to try to
educate the people involved, to tty to point out
what we need and why, and to do it with some
clarity—and not get involved in a lot of subjects
and a lot of material that is immaterial as far as
the university is concerned. I believe that those
in administrative areas that have contact with the
people should do all they can. I believe that the
student leaders—all students, as a matter of fact—
should be involved in politics, but I think it should
be in a democratic way and not in the effort of
stalling violence or changing by violent tactics.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed now?

I believe that the peace movement will die to
some degree, because with the world events oc¬
curring as they are, many people will see the ad¬
vantage of settling the war as early as possible.
And I believe that within the next few months
we’ll probably see some great strides made in the
Vietnam area, and then the peace situation will
die down considerably. As a matter of fact, if
they’re really interested in peace, why don’t they
do something about the Russian situation? It has
never developed any peaceful attitude towards
the various countries that are involved in the com¬
munist lot.

Do you have other comments you ’d like to make
about the whole situation?

None particularly. I, of course, was disap¬
pointed. I am strongly in favor of law and order,
and I believe that the only way we can change
things and remain a strong country is by the right
of each one, and each one recognizing the rights
of the others, and that we don’t override those
people who have certain rights. I believe that ev¬
erybody should have an opportunity, but I believe
it ought to be done in a calm, quiet way and not
to override the interest and concerns of other
people by force.

Brooke M. Piper

June 17, 1970

Now, for the record if you ’ll say your name, your
residence, your class and major.

My name is Brooke Piper. I live in Reno, and
I’m a senior and an English major.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Well, mainly, I think, because I've been ac¬
tive in student politics on this campus for the past
year and a half. I’ve been working with the ad¬
ministration and not working with the adminis¬
tration, and I kind of was on both sides. I have
helped organize a great many activities. So that’s
probably why.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia with troops?

Well, my reaction to that whole mess ....
Well, first of ah, two days before he decided to
go into Cambodia, President Nixon spoke to the
Senate foreign relations committee, and he told
the Senate foreign relations committee that there
was no possible chance that we would be going

into Cambodia. Two days later they were going
into Cambodia. So, my opinion about President
Nixon is that President Nixon is not making de¬
cisions on the war over there. I feel that it’s in the
hands of the generals or the CIA, one of the two,
and they’re making ah the decisions. They’re cov¬
ering it up by saying that if our military men are
in any kind of danger, we have to go in and pro¬
tect them. I feel it was just really an uncalled for
move, and it’s escalated the war. At this point,
they have the provincial capital of Laos, and al¬
though there’s less men, it is extending the bound¬
aries of the war. So I think it was a very poor
move.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

Well, it’s really two things. The Cambodia
thing got all the college campuses across country
pretty upset because they saw things were get¬
ting a little better, especially with the hoop with¬
drawal. And then, ah of a sudden, they saw an
escalation in the boundaries of the war, so they
decided to protest. When they protested, the Kent
incident happened. And when the Kent incident
happened, every campus—including here—and

318

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

a great many people were upset. So it just kind of
led into Governor’s Day.

We didn’t agree with Governor’s Day, any¬
way. The Governor’s Day is when the governor
comes up and sees the campus, and I don’t feel
that the governor should be saluted. The whole
organization that’s representing him up at the field
is military, and I think the military should have
their own awards banquet like any other organi¬
zation has on campus and just completely stay
away from representing and meeting the gover¬
nor, because it’s just absurd.

What was your reaction to the things that hap¬
pened in the rest of the country after the Cambo¬
dia decision?

Well, the National Guard thing, mainly, is the
thing that upsets me, because we’re supposed to
be such a sophisticated country and everything,
and we’re still using armed rifles—whereas Ger¬
many uses water guns, and Japan uses hollow
clubs that don’t cut, but just knock you out, or
shields and no weapons at all. It seems to me that
the gun thing in the United States within the army,
the military forces, is just beginning to get out of
control.

I myself, you know, don’t trust the
administration’s decisions, the campus people’s
decisions—especially when you have somebody
like Reagan saying, “We’re going to have a blood
bath. Let’s have it now and get it over with.” 1 I
think that’s completely irresponsible. And then,
when you have Slattery saying, “Get the aggies
and the right-wingers together and run the radi¬
cal left-wingers out of town.” And myself, I feel
that somebody should have charged Slattery with
inciting a riot, because the next day the Hobbit
was bombed. I think his statement had a lot to do
with it.

Yes, and we ’ll discuss that a little bit more later.
Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangements
made for observing Governor’s Day? You’ve al¬
ready said a little of this but you might expand
on it.

Well, a day and a half before Governor’s Day,
I went on television and said that the year before
we—the antiwar people—had been given permis¬
sion to meet in the bowl, carry out any activities
that we wanted to down there, and if we wanted
to, we could march up to the stadium and hold a
peaceful protest. And this was last year. We didn’t
do it last year mainly because ... I don’t know
really. People were still a little afraid of any kind
of confrontation, whether it was supposed to be
peace or not. This year I said over the televi¬
sion that we’re going to just march up there
right away.

And myself, I was disappointed. I think the
march around the stadium, around the field, was
very good and effective. But I don’t feel that we
should have gone up into the stands. I think we
should have stayed on the field the whole time,
mainly because ROTC has been required for a
long time on this campus. And it says under the
Morrill Land Grant Act that a land-grant college
must offer ROTC; it doesn’t say it must require
ROTC. The regents and everybody have read into
it saying it must require ROTC.

So myself. I’ve really felt like we should have
disrupted the whole thing and stopped it. But, due
to the numbers of police that were surrounding
the place, and due to the Reno police not ever
really being in any kind of college campus disor¬
der or any real riot of any kind, a group of us
decided that they might blow it. They might blow
it with their guns and everything because of the
thing that happened over at the census bureau
(which was very small, and very few numbers of
people) where the guns were out of the holsters. 2
We just felt like if we really did this rough that
the guns might come out and be fired, so we de¬
cided not to completely disrupt it.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration?

I think there were really two effective things.
It was getting in front of the motor parade before
it went up there. Legally, that’s a sidewalk. It’s
for authorized cars only, and anybody on the side¬
walk, I feel, has pedestrian’s right-of-way. If you

BROOKE M. PIPER

319

were in front of the motor parade, and you’re
walking up in a group, they’ve got to go slow
enough and not bump into the back of your legs
every two seconds. I thought that was very effec¬
tive, because it’s caused an issue with Paul
Adamian. He was walking with me, and the car
kept bumping him in the back of the legs, and
that’s when we called the halt to stop the whole
thing right there, because the guy driving the car
kept bumping into him.

The second part, I think, that was very effec¬
tive within the antiwar group itself was the boy
playing taps, although many people in the crowd
who were observing Governor’s Day thought it
was played facetiously. It went through the courts
on campus for mental abuse, which was absurd
and everything. When he played it, everybody in
the crowd was very sincere, because I’m veiy sure
everybody up there had lost one friend in Viet¬
nam over there. I think it was completely misun¬
derstood by the governor and the rest of the people
up there.

And that seems to be one of the big problems
in the communication aspect—because they’re
looking at things in a negative way, and we’re
looking at things in a positive way most of the
time. Anything that’s a confrontation between the
two, they take it negatively and they’re offended,
so then you have all the courts and the hassles
and everything. So I think those were the two best
parts.

How about the most effective part of the
Governor’s Day observance itself—any official
obseiyance ?

Well, it’s kind of like last year. There were
60, 65 people last year at Governor’s Day watch¬
ing and 450 down in the bowl. And I feel that,
well, this is why Governor’s Day, the way it’s
been handled, has to be stopped. Because there
were probably 600 students marching against it,
and probably not more than 150 people who came
to see it as just Governor’s Day. I think, prob¬
ably, 50 of those came to see it because they
wanted to see the demonstration, because it was
announced and was on television. And I think it’s

just completely absurd and very ineffective for
an academic standard, especially when you get
an award for the best hand salute and things like
that, [laughter]

What do you think should have happened up at
the stadium that day? What should the ROTC
have done? What should the demonstrators have
done? What should the university administration
have done?

Well, getting to that, we have to go back to a
letter or a memorandum that was circulated on
campus (which we were tried for and found not
guilty), which was a calling of the cancellation
of Governor’s Day because of the Cambodia in¬
vasion and the Kent incident. Feeling that ten¬
sions were pretty high, we didn’t feel that a mili¬
tary activity on campus would be very appropri¬
ate at that time. But it went on anyway because
they found out about the memorandum.

And—I don’t know—I think really that the
people up there observing Governor’s Day, who
wanted to be there, are very misinformed on
what’s really going on in the feelings of campus
students nowadays. I mean, even in all the meet¬
ings with the ag students that we had after and
everything, the majority of them were against the
war. It’s cutting down on their budget in their
Agricultural Department. It seems to me that
there’s a few very, very upstanding people who
are going to support the flag and the whole thing
without questioning anything, without question¬
ing any decisions. And it seems to me that the
democratic government is becoming very un¬
democratic at this point, and it’s being earned by
these very—you know—patriotic people. I feel
that now they’re a minority, but they’re in the
economic position of being able to continue with
the decision-making and not leading it into a full-
scale revolution at this point.

And myself, I wanted to just stop the thing—
Governor’s Day—before it happened. You know,
we talked to the administration and said, “Isn’t
there some other way we can salute the governor
coming on campus?” The answer was “no,” be¬
cause it was all set up and everything. And I

320

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

wanted to close it down right when it was going
on—disrupt the whole thing. But because of the
police situation, and because we talked to Mr.
Olsen and a few other people, we decided that
somebody might get hurt. It was right after the
Kent incident, and we didn’t want anybody shot.

But we have been guaranteed, supposedly,
that the Governor’s Day will not be held again
with the military, that it will probably be a whole
campus organizations’ meeting with the gover¬
nor (more like a coffee hour, probably, things like
that) and that the ROTC will have its own awards
banquet. So something did come of it. [laughter]

Do you want to say any more about the demon¬
stration here before we go on again, anything?

Well, I can say one thing. We had been lead¬
ing up to the blacks on this campus in the USA
demands that we had made and organized and
everything, and I think they were overlooked.
They were overlooked in that there were four
Kent State students killed on campus, when there
have been, probably, five hundred black students
killed on campuses across the nation, and there
have been no memorial services. There’s been
no big to-do about it.

I really felt that they were the major instiga¬
tors; they really stayed with us, and they were
the original group that went out on the field and
sat down, and not in the stands. And I really felt
that they have a lot more coming to them and
much more recognition than just fighting for their
own economic opportunity. Because they’re all
fighting for the war thing, too, and really, they’re
fighting first, which I was kind of surprised at—
because they have been getting the runaround on
this campus. I was really happy. We were kind of
worried because we didn’t have them in on the
meetings and the organization of the whole thing.
But they showed up, and I was really happy to
see them out there.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the fire bombings?

Well, myself, the ROTC building ... if we
would have done it, it wouldn’t have been stand¬
ing. I feel it was done by one of those freaky “out¬
side agitators” (that they called some of the flun¬
kies from Berkeley or something) that were up
here and just mouthing off and saying, “Violence,
violence, violence”—with no organization, no
anything. I feel that they just went driving by and
threw the damn thing, not made well or anything,
and it bounced off of the door. We were very dis¬
appointed that it didn’t burn all the way down.

There was one possibility of the whole build¬
ing blowing up at 11:00 right in the middle of
Governor’s Day, but because of certain problems
of getting certain things, it didn’t happen. And it
had been very well planned and everything, you
know, so nobody would be around and nobody
would be hurt because everybody would be up at
the stadium. It is a government building, it is run
by the government and everything, it’s way up
the hill, and people would just kind of start drift¬
ing away from it, and there wouldn’t be too much
to do about it. Mainly the high hostility towards
ROTC on this campus is because it’s required
for graduation, and I feel that if it wasn’t re¬
quired .... But that didn’t happen.

I felt that the attempt on the fire bombing was
pretty stupid myself. And the people that did it
were very unorganized and didn’t really know
how to do it. The trouble with it in Nevada is that
there’s quite a few students, especially those out¬
side people that were up there, that have tried to
be big leaders and haven’t made it in other
schools, and they’ve come up here, and they’re
on what I would consider a very big ego trip—
that they want the whole center around them. So
I felt that that was probably the group that fried
to burn the buildings and was very unsuccessful.

Then, the next day the Hobbit was bombed,
and I hold Senator Slattery personally responsible
for it because of the statement he made. He made
the statement at eleven o’clock that night, and it
was bombed at three o’clock that morning. I think
that his big vigilante group that he’s organizing
should have a big investigation with Raggio and

BROOKE M. PIPER

321

the whole works—investigating all students and
putting up stipulations on incoming California
students and that whole kind of thing. I think that
they’re really running themselves into the ground
because they’d just about get out of one mess
because of their conservative tendencies—which
are mostly unconstitutional and illegal—and get
it all cleared up and get all the tension from both
sides off their back, and they step [raps on table
for emphasis] right in and do it again.

It seems to me that, you know, the state is
just not learning very fast at all, and the state is
ten years behind. With these new elections com¬
ing up, I hope somebody will win besides dear
Senator Slattery and the rest of the group. But I
hold him personally responsible for it because of
that statement. I feel that it wasn’t done by stu¬
dents on campus. I feel it was probably done by
some very patriotic individual from downtown
who knew how to make the bomb, just went by
and threw it—and it was a wood building, and it
just burnt.

What category of participant in all of these af¬
fairs—the students, faculty, or outsiders—do you
think was most important in stirring up violence
on campus?

I think it was a combination of them all, re¬
ally. I really don’t think that you can single out
any one group, because there’s a group of stu¬
dents who have been going to the campus for four
years, and they have been antiwar for four years.
They have been promised certain things, and the
promises haven’t been met. And they’ve been told
these things, and it hasn’t been met—in every¬
thing, not just ROTC but in all the student social
changes on campus.

I think with the Cambodian invasion, the Kent
four, the black situation on this campus, some of
the things that were uncovered, and President
Miller’s very unstable position (and his terrible
state of the Nevada address), it all culminated
together. Like, the students were just not going
to go for sitting down in another black/white
meeting, if you want to call it, or another ROTC/

non-ROTC meeting. They went all the way up to
the line, I feel, and they went over. And they defi¬
nitely have the right to go over that line in this
state, because the administration has just not co¬
operated in the least with the students in any of
the decisions that have been made in the past two
years.

They have procrastinated, they have prom¬
ised things, and they have given token material
satisfaction to let the students think that it’s a
privilege. The trouble here is that the students
feel that a lot of things that they want are consti¬
tutional rights, and a lot of them are very insig¬
nificant things, but they feel that they should have
them. They’ve been fighting for the dorm hours,
the end of ROTC, a drinking policy—the whole
bit—for three years, and they really have not got¬
ten any real achievement out of it. They’ve got¬
ten it for a couple of weeks, and then it was taken
back. Or, certain things are overlooked like drink¬
ing with the [Sun]‘downers, and things like that,
but anybody else—drinking gets them in trouble.
It seems to me that the campus in all decisions
and their organizations—and in ROTC espe¬
cially—are very inconsistent. And until the cam¬
pus gets consistent, it’s going to meet more vio¬
lence, I feel.

So I feel that the students really contained
themselves very well. Because there were about
six hundred of us, and being out on that field with
those ROTC boys marching around and every¬
thing, there were a lot of hot tempers. It could
have very easily gone the other way. And I think
Doug Sherman had a lot to do with stopping it.
You know, I think it should have been stopped,
but I really wanted to see it just be completely
disrupted. But, I think it was the best because
people were going to really, I think, be hurt—
somebody probably would have been shot or
bayoneted or something. So I think all in all it
was very successful for Nevada, because I really
think Nevada definitely is not a Berkeley. It’s got
to go very, very slow compared to many of the
other universities, mainly because it’s a gambling
state— and the conservatives in here.

322

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Do you think outsiders were important in stir¬
ring up violence, too ?

No, I don’t think so. There were a great many
things planned—violent plans, too, that probably
would not hurt somebody, but might hurt a build¬
ing—long, long before those fourteen guys (or
how ever many of them there were) showed up. I
mean, the gym was going to be burnt down a week
before Buffy St. Marie was going to sing, and we
stopped that. It was from a very hostile group
within the community, and we stopped them from
doing that. There was a hundred gallons of gaso¬
line on campus. And very few people know about
these kinds of things.

But, you know, the Board of Regents are
blowing it right now, I feel. If they come out and
they put this code of conduct through, which has
already passed (I haven’t read it, but I’ve heard
some about it, and it seems to be very ridicu¬
lous) .... Paul Adamian—especially with ten¬
ure and receiving his contract already—is being
charged for blocking traffic and leading students
in catcalls, and if he is fired for that, you’re go¬
ing to see an awful lot of damage done on this
campus next year .... And then with censorship
of the newspaper, I mean, that doesn’t even be¬
long in a university.

I think the state has lost the real meaning of
what a university is. A university through history
has been the basic means of social change, and
it’s a place where you can deal with revolution¬
ary ideas and take them from revolutionary ideas
to socially accepted ideas and then implement it
into the society. They’re stopping you from even
getting to the social background of it. So I feel
that unless they come around, the dorm students
are going to blow up because of the hours and
because of the conditions over there; the blacks
are going to blow up because they’ve failed to
have a decent economic opportunity program; and
ROTC is going to be picketed the first day of
registration.

A lot of the incoming freshmen don’t know
that, you know; they’re talked into registering.
They say it’s required, so we got to get it out of
the way. Most of the incoming freshmen don’t

graduate from Nevada. They come here for two
years and then transfer, and you don’t have to
take it. So we’re going to have a little booth set
up informing all the students, all the incoming
students, that they don’t have to take it, and they
shouldn’t take it. So I really hope that somebody
wakes up a little.

President Miller—I really can’t condemn the
man because I, myself, feel he’s not making any
of those decisions. He’s just a buffer, and he’s
being a very poor buffer between the regents and
the governor and the students. He did come out
against the code of conduct, he and the president
of that Las Vegas university, but it didn’t do any¬
thing, you know. He could speak out after it was
passed and be safe. The trouble is that he’s not
doing his job as a college president, because a
college president is supposed to represent the stu¬
dents. And he is not representing the students,
because he feels that if he does, his job will be
jeopardized.

There’s so many new jobs open up there, and
until you get somebody in the administration
who’s going to say, “Well, I really don’t give a
damn about my $15,000 a year this year because,
like, I got it this year, and I can get another job if
I'm fired from Nevada . . . .” You got to have
somebody who is going to go out on a limb with
those dumb regents and the governor and just tell
them, “Now, look, you’ve got to let the students
do some of this stuff. They’re responsible.
They’ve been educated for fifteen years. They
ought to be able to run their own campus.”

What kinds of actions do you feel were important
in cooling off the situation after the fire bomb¬
ings?

Well, there were a whole bunch of meetings
called. I guess there were meetings of the so-
called radicals and then meetings of the conser¬
vatives or the aggies and the [Sun] ‘downers. The
next day, I think, Paul Adamian, myself, and Ben
Hazard and a few other people were invited up to
the ag building to their meeting. And, you know,
we walked in and we got some pretty hostile re¬
marks and things like that. We got it kind of

BROOKE M. PIPER

323

cleared up that it wasn’t our faction that bombed
the ROTC building. I think it really made me re¬
alize that a lot of those people are very sheltered,
and I would consider very stupid, in their remarks.
One fellow remarked that, “Well, those Kent State
National Guard were terrible. They should have
been better marksmen and at least gotten fifteen.”

You know, you’re dealing with those kinds
of people who are running around ripping picket
signs out of girls’ hands and breaking them over
their legs and things like that. And you have the
administration, Sam Basta and the group, running
around on campus at the same time saying, “Keep
it cool, keep it cool.” It’s been stated by the Su¬
preme Court that picket signs are a legal means
of expressing opinion, and if there’s no disciplin¬
ary actions against them, the aggies and the
[Sun]‘downers are then standing up there and
saying, “Well, if you continue any kind of strike,
any kind of violence, we’re going to clean it up
and take care of it.” That’s what they said. They
consider picket signs violence.

I think the meetings were very good in the
idea that there were a whole bunch of people
standing in the room yelling at each other, and
there were enough faculty, teachers, administra¬
tors, and everybody there, so it didn’t turn out
into a big melee. That’s the main thing. It just
reduced the tension, because everybody got in
the rooms and yelled and blew up, and told ev¬
erybody to get screwed and the whole works, and
then went their own way. I think it was really a
successful confrontation or an encounter group,
because everybody kind of went away purged,
but it didn’t solve any of the problems. It reduced
the tensions, but it didn’t solve any of the prob¬
lems that exist on the campus.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image outside?

Well, first of all, you got the newspaper and
Channel 8. After a few appearances on Channel
8 after the fire bombing, we were over at the
Hobbit cleaning up, and they came out, and I re¬
fused to even go on the thing.

And, well, Paul Adamian has been given the
runaround. First of all, they’ve broken the AAUP
code that states that there shall be no publicity
until the investigation is over. So the first day,
you know, you have Paul Adamian’s whole life:
military duty, honorable discharge, the whole
works over the radio. Then, you have Channel 8
coming out and saying that, “We demand some
kind of disciplinary action, or the expulsion and
firing of this professor”—before the investiga¬
tion, before anything. And you also have the
newspaper coming out with a huge front-page
story on how an English T.A. used a four-letter
word in class and is probably going to be fired,
because he doesn’t have any protection, and how
the leader of the whole organization was Paul
Adamian, who had done the whole thing, from
the USA all the way down to the bombings. The
newspapers turned it into a witch hunt.

Once the people read it, or saw it on televi¬
sion, the conservative factions wrote in their let¬
ter saying, “Great,” without knowing, really, any¬
thing about the whole case or the whole thing.
And my feeling is that I think the Reno Evening
Gazette and the Nevada State Journal. . . and
Channel 8 is one of the most corrupt and biased
news stations of any type in the nation. You know,
everybody’s always talking about small town
papers being bad, but I think Nevada’s papers are
just absolutely ridiculous.

Just yesterday they came out with a statement
saying that Chariie Springer running for gover¬
nor is running on a complete mercenary campaign
and paying all students working for him to get
signatures—a big story about that. And you know
what? He’s paying one student, who is a gradu¬
ate student verifying all the signatures, which is
like an eight-hour-a-day job with 7,500 signa¬
tures. You have to look them up on a register thing.
I think somebody like that should be paid, be¬
cause that’s his only way that’s he’s going to have
any money to even, you know, pay his rent. But
there’s no other students being paid.

It seems to me that the papers in this town
blow everything up. So, I mean, reading the pa¬
pers, I thought this campus was up in smoke, gone
and burnt down, bricks being thrown, bazookas

324

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

and the whole works. That’s how the papers made
it sound. And that’s the trouble. The people down¬
town, the people throughout the state, never get
up on this campus, so what can they believe? The
paper. So they believe the paper, and they’re yell¬
ing, “Run the radicals out of town,” without re¬
ally knowing anything that’s happening.

So, I think they’re one of the major causes,
in this town and in the state, for hostilities devel¬
oping between different factions. They say one
thing about one faction which is detrimental, and
another thing about another faction which is det¬
rimental, and then the two factions square off
because of the paper, and it just seems completely
ridiculous.

What can the university do to focus public opin¬
ion ?

That’s pretty difficult, I think. The other day
they had a meeting with [Elmer] Briscoe [Reno’s
chief of police], some upstanding citizens, and
the whole group, over at the Center for about four
or five hours. You talk a lot, and you get a lot of
agreement from Briscoe and a lot of the other
people, you know, sitting at the table with him,
saying, “Yes, we understand how you feel, and
everything about the war and the protest thing,” I
mean, everything. But it seems to me they’re
hypocrites, because as soon as they leave, they
go out, and they continue to—as the students
say—hassle any kind of “anti” organization. Any¬
thing that goes against the set things in the state,
you know, is crushed very quickly.

I think the gambling thing is one of the big
things behind it. But how you can get public opin¬
ion, I really don’t know .... Well, one way: right
now we’re circulating the petitions for Charlie
Springer. I would think most people know by now
that he is an independent running—no party af¬
filiation, not very conservative, and quite a lib¬
eral. If we can get 7,500 signatures just in this
area to get him on the ballot, I think that possibly
would show that people are beginning to wake
up a little. But otherwise, I just do not see how
you can find out what the people are thinking

down there, downtown, because they’re thinking
what the newspaper says.

To do it you’d have to stop the newspaper
for a week, and you would have to run it and re¬
ally let them know that, “I think I can write an
unbiased article on just exactly what happened.”
Just let them know exactly what happens and the
emotions and the feelings of the people. I think
that’s what’s being overlooked right now: the
emotions and feelings of the students, especially
on the Vietnam War and the Cambodian incident.
Because all the people that are making the deci¬
sions on this damn war are fifty, sixty, seventy
years old, and all the people that are fighting it
and getting killed arc eighteen, nineteen, twenty,
up to twenty-five. Those people that are benefit¬
ing economically by continuing the war are not
getting killed. They’re not the ones going over
there and fighting. To me, it’s a mercenary war
for an imperialistic reason, but of the United
States, and it’s going to continue.

Do you think that issues of academic freedom
were involved in participating in a demonstra¬
tion ?

Oh, definitely, especially with the code of
conduct passed now and censorship of the news¬
paper. You know, the aspect of the academic free¬
dom on this campus—you really can’t talk about
it because there is no academic freedom on this
campus, I feel, or very little. The teachers are
handcuffed all the time.

In 1953 they tried to run six of them out in
the McCarthy thing. They’ve been running En¬
glish professors out for the past five years. Now,
they’re trying to run two more out for doing ab¬
solutely nothing. And as long as they continue to
get rid of the teachers (and the teachers that they
do get rid of are usually the best ones, the ones
that know what academic freedom is about), you
will have these people that are, you know, life¬
time students, teachers fifty years old reading out
of the book, not discussing anything relevant to
the world today. That’s the main thing.

With the cause of the strike and the academic
freedom down at Berkeley, the main thing down

BROOKE M. PIPER

325

there is saying that we’re not closing the univer¬
sity down just to shut it off and not use it; we’re
closing it down to make it relevant to today’s
needs, like pollution, population, economics, the
war. You’re going to have to solve those things
before you go out and write a book as an English
major, you know, or go out and teach more people
to read Shakespeare. I mean, that’s not helping
the whole situation.

I’ve been working with professors down in
Berkeley on their strike center, and they’re work¬
ing out in the community at this point getting sig¬
natures, and trying to get students to get signa¬
tures, to support the local dove candidates
throughout California. They have lines set up with
Massachusetts, Harvard, Stanford and a few other
places. They feel right now that University of
California at Berkeley won’t open in September,
and Stanford probably won’t open in September,
and Harvard probably won’t open in September.
You know, June 31 is getting pretty close, and
Nixon has already extended it an extra two weeks
of his original statement. And unless some dras¬
tic change happens with the war—like 150,000
troops are brought home immediately, you’re out
of Cambodia, and you’re not bombing anymore—
the students won’t let the universities open in
California. I’m very sure of that.

OK. That’s interesting. How do you think students
and faculty can be effective politically, or should
they be?

Oh, I think they definitely should be. I think
the university has been lost in the United States a
long time ago. In the 1600s and earlier, and up
until about the early 1800s, the university was a
creative institution. As an English major I can
talk about it because I’ve written one paper in
my four years of college that I have wanted to
write and something that I wanted to write on.

It seems to me that we have canonized and
made our forefathers the great omnipotents. We
have to read them, learn about them, and criti¬
cize them, instead of writing what you want to
say and developing new ideas. There are a few
professors in the school that let you do that—

very few. You’re being very dishonest when
you’re just criticizing another work, or when
you’re just writing a book report about another
work. And as long as the other side, the other
group who kind of leave out creativity, follow
the strict intellectual plan of books (what they
call “knowledge”), you’re never going to get the
two factions politically together—because the
ideas can’t come politically together unless people
are honest with each other.

So, I definitely feel that the university has
got to do something because there’s seven mil¬
lion college students in this country and prob¬
ably one million college professors. It’s the only
chance that the country has, I feel. If Paul
Adamian and Fred are fired, you’re going to see
either the campus really blow up, or you’re go¬
ing to see a five-year regression, mainly because
the teachers will feel that if they can fire them,
they can let anybody else go. That’s one thing
that I hope will hold the decision of the senate
court on Paul and Fred in a positive way, because
I think that there are a lot of scared teachers on
campus. They all have a chance of being let go,
whether they are politically involved, whether
they have an extra drink here, whether they mess
around with a female student or anything like
that—anything that possibly might not meet up
to their new code of conduct or social accept¬
ability.

So I hope that that will pull the faculty sen¬
ate together in that aspect. But, you know, unless
it does, you’re going to have a very difficult situ¬
ation on this campus, because the teachers are
going to be one group; the radical-left students
are going to be one group; the middle-of-the-
roaders are going to be there (the fraternity and
sororities, and those involved in the social scene);
and then you’re going to have the [Sun] ‘downers
and the aggies crashing, [raps on table twice for
emphasis] You’re going to have five groups crash¬
ing on each other, and then you’re going to just
have complete chaos.

Where do you think the peace movement is going
in this area?

326

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, Mr. Hulse (who has been involved in it
quite awhile), Paul [Adamian], myself, and John
Lord have organized a faculty ad hoc peace com¬
mittee on the campus. I’m not sure at this point,
you know, how many followers we have or sig¬
natures that have done the whole thing. I don’t
know ....

On the campus I think people are becoming
aware, even in the Agriculture Department. You
know, it doesn’t take a life for them to become
aware, but it takes some cutting down the money.
Then they become aware. But within the town
and the community itself, I feel very discouraged.
You know, when you’re a poor family, and you’re
arrested for using an old American flag for a table¬
cloth, and then held for $1,700 bail, when you
have three kids, and they’re all practically starv¬
ing—the priorities have to come into the ques¬
tion.

It seems to me that the people in the town are
uneducated, or they’re educated in a system which
breeds un-creativity. Without creativity you’re
never going to question any decision, and unless
you question the decisions, you’re going to have
a dictatorship or an oligopoly—just like in Rus¬
sia. That’s what you’ve got now. You’ve got, prob¬
ably 100,000 prominent people in the country,
including the big business, who are making all
the decisions. Nixon isn’t making the decision,
and the Congress isn’t making the decision.

This is why, in one sense, I’m in favor of the
whole violent thing in the country now. With vio¬
lence you have more repression, and with more
repression you have more violence, and it spreads.
Once it hits suburbia, and once Joe Schmo, busi¬
nessman, gets clunked on the head just walking
down the street to get on the bus, then he gets
upset about the whole thing. Once the middle
class—who are, you know, the unheard middle
class—realize that there is repression and
something’s got to be done, then when they rise
and start questioning, you’re going to have a so¬
cial change.

But the problem is now they’re rebuilding
concentration camps all around the country: up
at Tule Lake, in Buffalo, in New York, and in
Arizona. 3 1 have no idea who they’re going to put

in, but, you know, a lot of people are getting wor¬
ried about that kind of thing. I don’t know ....
This community, I think, has either got to become
human and really learn what human emotions are
about, or it’s got to be completely destroyed with
a big riot. Once the riot will happen, and once
those people get hurt down there along with some
of us and the blacks, you’re going to have the
three coming together because they’re going to
say, “My, God, you know, we can’t have ten more
people killed and a hundred more buildings
burned.” And then both sides are going to com¬
promise. I think that’s the only way you get any¬
thing done on this campus and in the commu¬
nity: threaten some way of some kind of civil dis¬
obedience, some kind of violence, some kind of
unsocial accepted movement, and then you get a
reaction. Until you do that, you have no reaction.

Yes, that’s interesting. Do you have other com¬
ments you’ d like to make about this whole situa¬
tion?

Well, I can make a comment about the whole
country. I can say that doing research and every¬
thing like I’ve done (and this was the premise
and the basis of the Berkeley scene and the strike
and the whole thing), in 1963 President Kennedy
was assassinated by our own country. Jackie
Kennedy married Onassis in the next couple of
years because of the information she knew—her
life was in danger. And Onassis being just about
the wealthiest man in the world, he could keep
her protected on a yacht in the Mediterranean
most of the time enjoying herself.

I also feel that the guy who shot Martin Luther
King was caught in England, and they tried a dif¬
ferent man in the country in a fifteen-minute little
trial, and the FBI has never turned the guy over
to anybody. And I feel that Bobby Kennedy was
assassinated by our own factions within our own
country. And I feel since 1963 when Kennedy
was assassinated, that the CIA—which has a
blank check and can spend as much money as it
wants—has been making all the decisions in the
country. President Nixon cannot even look in their
files to see who they are following. And with the

BROOKE M. PIPER

327

new bill of the CIA infiltrating the college cam¬
puses this next year ....

I think that a lot of people are going to be¬
come aware in the next two or three years, unless
there’s an abrupt change in the voting pattern,
and different people get in. But whether they will
have power to do anything. I’m not sure. Unless
Congress gets back to, you know, a constitutional
democracy or a republic (which it’s very far away
from at this point), unless it starts to lead that
way, I think that you’re leading towards what
Germany did. I’ve been talking to a friend of mine
who knew a professor who fled Germany in 1942,
got out and came here and has lived here since
then. He has three kids, and he lived through the
whole German thing—he was a high official and
everything. And a month ago, he left the United
States and went to Canada with his whole family
without a job because he said it is identical to
what happened in Germany, and he won’t sit
around and see it. So he left. And I am very pes¬
simistic about what this country is doing, espe¬
cially throughout the world, because everybody
hates us at this point.

We can’t continue to be big brother, and
God’s not always on our side, and we’re going to
have to take a defeat. As Nixon says, “We have
never been defeated before, and we’re not going
to be defeated.” I think that’s an absurd statement,
and I think that it’s about time that a few people
lost some of their omnipotence and pride and
stalling looking at, “Well, how can we feed the
world, how can we stop the war, you know, how
can we shelter everybody?” I say we got this: we
can walk on the moon, so we can shelter and feed
everybody. We got the technology, and I think
the capitalistic thing has been good up to a cer¬
tain point, but it has gotten out of control. You’re
either going to definitely have to have social
checks on profit, or you’re going to really have a
revolution. Just within the United States, in the
upper-middle class and the upper class compared
to the lower class, the gap is getting wider every
day. I mean, right now the nation is at 5.8 percent
unemployed—you know, the whole nation. And
because they’re spending money in the war, the
government is cutting back on all educational

things. I have friends that have 3.95 average all
the way through graduate school and have a Ph.D.
in physics, and they can’t get a job. You also have
an overabundance of college graduates out on the
streets now. San Francisco is ridiculous: seventy
qualified college graduates for every job that’s
open in San Francisco. And you’re going to have
to socialize, I feel, in a certain way, if you’re go¬
ing to let everybody live, or you’re going to have
to just do what Hitler did and start exterminating
people. That’s about it.

Notes

1. Reagan said, “If it takes a bloodbath, let’s get it over
with. No more appeasement.” His comment occurred
during the question and answer session following a
speech then-Governor Reagan gave in Yosemite, Cali¬
fornia, on April 8, 1970.

2. On April 3, 1970, a demonstration at the U.S. Cen¬
sus Bureau in Reno escalated into violence with po¬
lice after 60 individuals protested the absence of black
census takers for the 1970 census.

3. Tide Lake: a small lake in the northeast corner of
Siskiyou County, Northern California. During World
War II, it was the site of a “relocation camp” for Japa¬
nese-Americans.

James T. Richardson

June 16, 1970

So now for the record, if you ’ll say your name,
your residence, and your position.

My name is James T. Richardson, and I’m
from Lubbock, Texas. I’m presently an assistant
professor of sociology.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Well, I’ve wondered about that. I asked the
lady that called me if the name had been given
by the regents, perhaps, as kind of a joke. I did
participate, and a lot of people knew it, including
some in the library, so I’m not surprised that my
name was mentioned.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia with United States
troops?

Well, at first it was absolute, utter disbelief,
and it changed pretty quickly to just a state of
outrage and shock. I do not agree with his move
into Cambodia at all. And it really doesn’t mat¬

ter how many pictures of rice that I see. It just
seemed like a very bad thing to do. I certainly
knew that campuses would blow up. I seem to be
a little bit more perceptive on that issue than Presi¬
dent Nixon himself. But I certainly think we came
very close to allying ourselves in war with Red
China, and that’s happened before. So I just don’t
think it was wise at all.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

Well, I think the war issue was really some¬
what dead on the campuses until President Nixon
did this, and certainly the killings later added fuel
to the fire, but I don’t think we would have seen
even five percent of the demonstrations on cam¬
puses if he hadn’t gone into Cambodia. I don’t
think we would have seen anything on this cam¬
pus, although there were some related problems
that I thought might precipitate such events.

The way the administration and regents have
reacted in a disciplinary case or two—particu¬
larly Jesse Sattwhite and one or two other
things—had led me to actually make a predic¬
tion that we would see some sort of demonstra-

330

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

James Richardson, 1970s.

tion on our campus before the term was up this
spring. I don’t guess I really think anything would
have happened. There would have been some¬
thing happening if the student judicial council had
found Jesse Sattwhite guilty on all counts and
expelled him from school, but they had more
sense than to do that. Also, there were not grounds
to do that. I've had a lot of contact with him. and
I happen to be one that he threatened and that
sort of thing. But anyway, that situation was
cooled off. and I really think that nothing would
have happened here had it not been for the deci¬
sion to move into Cambodia.

In what way do you think the Cambodian deci¬
sion was related to what happened all over the
country, and what was your reaction to events
stemming from the Cambodian decision over the
country?

Well, I really wasn’t surprised. We saw the
biggest shutdown of higher education in the his¬
tory of this country, and yet it came as no sur¬
prise to me; in fact, I was gratified that the stu¬
dents did not let him get away with it, in a sense.
I mean, he got away with it, but certainly a great
deal of protest was registered.

Someone needs to take note of the fact that
there were a great deal of very orderly, peaceful,
meaningful protests, petition signing, and that sort
of thing. There were also some violent kinds of
protests. But what we saw was just a good por¬
tion of the people involved in higher education
simply outraged at what happened. First, in a lot
of situations, we saw schools not being shut down
by students, but we saw schools being shut down
by students and faculty administrators in agree¬
ment to shut it down as a protest. And that is some¬
thing new. I happen to think that that’s kind of a
landmark thing. It would be interesting to see what
happens in the future.

But the Cambodian decision did precipitate
this unification of students and administration and
faculty, which has been a fairly rare thing. Usu¬
ally, it’s students against administrators or maybe
students and faculty against administrators. But
we saw administrators themselves going on the
line on this issue in some places, at some of our
more enlightened institutions. That did not hap¬
pen here, of course. But it did happen in quite a
number of places.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities here
on our campus: what did you think of the arrange¬
ments made for the observance of Governor’s
Day?

Well, things like Governor’s Day, I interpret
them as something of a ritualistic faqade that we
must participate in somehow to maintain our¬
selves in a certain kind of social structure. I can
say honestly that were I the president of this uni¬
versity, I would have done all in my power to
have cancelled it. because, in fact, that gave the
students here an issue. If there had been no
Governor’s Day activities, I don’t think anything

JAMES T. RICHARDSON

331

else would have happened, except maybe a walk
downtown carrying a few signs.

But when Governor’s Day did take place, the
students found themselves in a very successful
venture of who demonstrated, and that encour¬
aged them. I would honestly say I think it was
naive on the part of the administration and others
involved not to have the foresight to cancel them.
Schools were closed all over the country. That
very kind of ceremony itself was called off in a
number of places, because everyone gets together
and hurrahs the ROTC once a year, and it usually
happens in the spring. I actually saw a news tele¬
cast of what happened at Tulane University: they
just canceled the services because they knew a
counter-demonstration was planned. They just
canceled it, so nothing happened. But they did
not cancel them here. They talk about their right
to have their ceremony and what-not, and I con¬
cur with their right. But if they’re going to have
that ceremony during that week, they need to
expect some consequences, and I hold them re¬
sponsible for what happened, really.

I was fairly deeply involved in that, in that I
did participate. I was one who attempted to talk
the students into not going down there, because I
felt it would be counterproductive and get people
more angry—but the students couldn’t be de¬
terred, because they’d been signing petitions and
writing letters for a long time. They read and hear
over the television that the senate committee
headed by Senator Fulbright is unanimously
against the move into Cambodia, and others—
high-ranking politicians—are against it. They
have, in fact, convinced these politicians. In a
sense, you could say that. I think the student peace
movement has to be given credit for forcing some
people to examine the issues and to look again,
to change positions. Fulbright himself has
changed positions drastically. But all he saw was
that, in fact, not only were these senators inef¬
fectual in controlling what happened, they didn’t
even know it. They read about it in the newspa¬
per. So, it’s hai'd to convince students that they
should sit down and write a letter to their sena¬
tor, when, in fact, their senator doesn’t know what

the hell is going on and has even less power to do
anything about it.

I deeply sympathize with them. My reason¬
ing for advocating them not going to Governor’s
Day is just that I thought it would be counterpro¬
ductive. It turns out I was right. But when they
went. I went with them and did my part to help
control the crowd. Although, in more direct re¬
sponse to the question, when we got down there,
and the students were there demonstrating, I think
another important tactical error was made on the
part of those in charge. If you’ve ever been to
one of these things, it’s an interminable ceremony:
they just keeping reading names of guys getting
awards for being good at gun cleaning and good
at shining shoes. One fellow got an award for
being proficient in the manual for weapon instruc¬
tion and the Constitution of the United States,
which I thought was very interesting, and it
brought a large laugh from the crowd, because
the structure of the sentence equated these two
things. Evidently, the person who wrote it doesn’t
know much about grammar.

But it just kept droning on and on. And again,
had I been any of the regents present or Miller
himself, I would have surveyed the situation and
attempted to shorten it, because the trouble started
after the students had been in the stands a good
forty-five minutes going onto an hour. They just
got tired and left the stands and got out on the
field, and that’s when the trouble really devel¬
oped. We had been able to keep them in the stands,
but they just got tired of listening to it, and they
left. If it had been shortened in some way, we
could have kept them in the stands until it was
over, the soldiers could have marched out, and
the students would have marched out behind
them. As it was, they got down on the field and
caused a great deal of anxiety and difficulty be¬
fore it was over.

I might say, in this regal'd, that I write a lot of
letters, it seems, or at least more than normal.
When I began to see the reaction of what hap¬
pened on Governor’s Day and knew that the re¬
gents’ meeting was coming up at the end of the
week, I wrote a letter to President Miller inter-

332

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

preting the events and telling him about faculty
participation in them, at least most faculty par¬
ticipation. And, in fact, I brought that letter with
me. And if it were to be of any interest, I could
even read it into the record, if you'd like. 1

Oh, yes, if you’d like to.

It says some of what I’ve been saying, but it
perhaps will be a little more closely argued. Let¬
ter dated May the sixth, 1970: [reading from let¬
ter]

President N. Edd Miller, University of Ne¬
vada, Reno, Nevada.

Deal' President Miller,

Particularly after reading the popular
“Cobwebs” column in the Nevada State Jour¬
nal of May 6, 1970,1 feel compelled to com¬
ment on the participation of faculty in the
Governor’s Day demonstration. I had been
thinking about this before reading the col¬
umn, simply because I felt that you as Chief
Administrator of the university, should know
as much as possible about what took place.
However, now it appears that some defense
of faculty participation may be in order to
the Regents and to the community at large.
You, as president, have this responsibility
such as called for. I personally intend to re¬
frain from attempting such a defense, largely
because I feel that statements from a faculty
member would be ineffectual.

To my knowledge, approximately ten
faculty members took part in the demonstra¬
tion. I will attempt something of a chronol¬
ogy of this participation so that this informa¬
tion will be on record. I will usually refrain
from mentioning names, simply because this
is a personal letter and I did not seek permis¬
sion from other participants before writing
to you.

On Monday evening—which was the day
before the Governor’s Day activities—Dave

Harvey, who is also an assistant professor in
the Department of Sociology, and I attended
a student meeting in which plans for Tues¬
day were being made. We attempted to per¬
suade the students not to go to Governor’s
Day ceremonies. Dave spent forty-five min¬
utes trying to convince some of the student
leaders that this was not the best way to reg¬
ister a protest. He was unsuccessful, although
he also tried again later to convince the stu¬
dents in an open meeting of about fifty stu¬
dents, during which plans were finalized. I
must hasten to add that we were not trying to
completely subvert the demonstration. That
is not the case. We were attempting to get
them to agree to stay in the bowl with
speeches and singing oriented toward some
more constructive kinds of activities. Particu¬
larly, we suggested that the students organize
to work in the fall election, supporting can¬
didates that shared their views concerning the
war. The students would have none of this,
however, and decided to move to the stadium
to protest.

I will briefly comment on their reasons
because I feel that they are profound. They
were not just a group of kids trying to get on
TV. They felt very strongly about the Kent
State affair and did not feel that being in the
bowl was adequate to express how deeply
they felt this tragedy. Of course, the Cambo¬
dian situation was the original impetus for
the activities, and it was particularly on this
point that they rejected any thought of work¬
ing through political channels; they simply
do not believe that such makes any differ¬
ence. I tend to agree with them on this point.
Nixon was elected partially because of his
pledge to get us out of Vietnam. Now, we’re
in another country, and the usual political
processes for declaring war have again been
circumvented. Also, the resumption of bomb¬
ing over the north was seen as another sign
that political processes do not work.

And you haven’t mentioned that, but the same
week we heard first over North Vietnamese ra-

JAMES T. RICHARDSON

333

dio that we were bombing the north again, and
the students were upset about this. As I say here
in the letter, the Pentagon later verified the North
Vietnam ports, that we were bombing the north
again, and, again, the senators themselves didn’t
know.

The students think it is senseless to talk
about political processes when the senate it¬
self cannot stop the expansion of the war.
Therefore, they felt that they were exercis¬
ing the only alternative left open to them—
taking to the streets. There is one other im¬
portant reason for their lack of interest in the
alternatives that were suggested to them.
They do not understand why Governor’s Day
is a day of reviewing the troops. They made
the important point that there are many ac¬
tivities on campus that could be recognized
by the governor on a special day with classes
dismissed; however, all that is done is a troop
review. I’m sure that there is a general igno¬
rance of the historical derivation of
Governor’s Day on the part of students and
faculty. However, I would suggest that their
thoughts in this matter be considered in fu¬
ture planning for such an event.

I’m glad that’s on tape because it’ll be inter¬
esting to see what happens next year. The only
time of the year that the governor comes, and we
dismiss classes, all they do is review the ROTC
troops—a very ridiculous situation.

Now, onto Tuesday morning. Several fac¬
ulty members attended the start of activities
in the bowl. Most were there simply to make
their own feelings about the war and Kent
State known. However, it quickly became
evident that the faculty members that had
come might serve a useful function as moni¬
tors. One from the English Department, not
Adamian, made the strong point and got stu¬
dent agreement that what was planned was a
counter-demonstration to the ROTC program,
not a disruption of the activities. At this point,
as students gave a fiery speech concerning

the fact that the parade cars were parked on
the students’ sidewalk in front of the union,
no one had time to point out that the side¬
walk belongs to the State of Nevada. Imme¬
diately the students left for this area. The stu¬
dent leaders had not planned this march on
the cars at the union; it just happened. No
one was prepared for what happened between
the university library and Lincoln Hall. Es¬
pecially the faculty members were not ready,
because it had just become evident how bad
a mood some of the crowd were in. I should
note here, however, that two faculty mem¬
bers did suggest to the police that they re¬
route the cars to Virginia Street, instead of
going through the campus as was planned,
evidently. This was done, and even more
trouble was avoided at this point.

And I might comment on what I have read.
The two faculty members who have been charged
were supposedly involved in this blockage of the
cars. Although I did not see them, I observed the
scene from the steps of the library and did not
notice either of them. But anyway, I have read it
in the paper.

At the stadium the situation was not prob¬
lematic for quite awhile, and the track cir¬
cling did no harm and allowed some steam
to be let off. Some faculty members attempted
to keep the students from molesting the at-
ease ROTC troops. Except for one instance
of cap throwing, there was no difficulty ex¬
cept for heckling. There did seem to be a mis¬
understanding when the students stalled into
the stands. Procter Hug Jr. seemed upset with
Jim Hulse, who’s from the History Depart¬
ment, about the fact that the students would
not leave. I mention this because Mr. Hug’s
reaction implied that he felt some faculty had
control over the crowd and could actually tell
them whether or not to go into the stands;
this was not the case. No one really had con¬
trol over the crowd, not even the students.
The demonstration was larger than they ex¬
pected, and the mood of the crowd was worse

334

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

than planned for. Anyway, the plan had been
to go to the stands all along. The Rack cir¬
cling was a last-minute decision made by the
students in the bowl earlier that morning.
Originally, as of Monday night, they had de¬
cided to go to the stands and do chants dur¬
ing the ceremony. Then at the last they were
going to file out and go around the track fol¬
lowing the troops.

Once we got into the stands, the students
were fairly orderly for a time. However, as
the interminable ceremony continued, they
became restless and wanted to leave. At about
11:30 I and two other sociology faculty
started to leave because we had a luncheon
meeting. However, one of the faculty that was
attempting to control the crowd asked us to
stay because of this increased restlessness on
the part of the students. We did, and now I’m
glad of it. Once the word was passed that no
student or faculty spokesman would be al¬
lowed to speak for the demonstrators until
the ceremony was terminated, the students
really began to spill onto the field. They had
thought that someone from the group would
be allowed to speak. They, the student dem¬
onstrators, simply wanted to hear someone
acknowledge the fact that the Kent students
had been killed and that we were in Cambo¬
dia.

And I think that was another tactical error,
by the way. It would have done no harm and per¬
haps contributed to the harmony of the situation
if someone , even a faculty member, would have
been allowed to give a five-minute talk about
these particular two things. But we were informed
that we could, in fact, have the microphone as
soon as the ceremony was over, which meant as
soon as the Poops left. In other words, they would
leave us there and we could use the microphone
all the rest of the day. That was a very short¬
sighted decision, I feel.

Out on the field the situation became
nasty. A few faculty members were attempt¬
ing to keep the demonstrators from physically

bothering the ROTC troops as they drilled.
This was quite difficult as some were rather
emotional. I felt the situation was going to
explode when the Poops started toward the
demonstrators with fixed bayonets. One fac¬
ulty member actually took a bayonet in the
back as he was pinned between students and
troops. He was not hurt because the bayonet
earl ier had enough sense to not be forceful,
but not enough sense to lower his weapon. I
feel that had there not been some faculty and
students on the field attempting to keep or¬
der, there would have been some physical
violence. Some of the students were very
emotional, and I am certain that the ROTC
troops would not have run from them. As you
know, we did avoid a real confrontation, and
the ceremonies finally terminated and the
ordeal was over.

I will close my letter at this point so that
it can be delivered to you today. If you desire
to discuss the contents of the letter with me,
please call at the office or at my home. I sin¬
cerely hope that you can use the information
contained herein in a constructive way. One
pressing suggestion I would make is that the
faculty somehow be organized to aid in moni¬
toring such future demonstrations. Someone
must accept this responsibility or the police
will have to be used, a situation that, at least
for now, is unnecessary.

Sincerely yours,

James T. Richardson, Assistant Profes¬
sor of Sociology

I should have picked up the response from
this letter. I got a very nice response thanking me
for writing the letter and stating that, in fact, Presi¬
dent Miller himself was glad that faculty mem¬
bers were present to help monitor the situation. I
would not mind having read that, but I just didn’t
think about bringing it.

I might add one other comment that I heard
with regard to what took place there. Procter Hug
Jr. was quoted later that day as saying that he
was not too upset about what happened, which
leads me, among other things, to think that what

JAMES T. RICHARDSON

335

he’s done since then has been done in response
to pressure from people downtown. He made a
statement to a friend that, in fact, the most irra¬
tional man in the stadium was Colonel Ralf, who
when the ROTC troops stalling marching toward
the students, stood and waved his arms and
shouted, “Kill, kill,” in a very loud voice, which
was audible even out on the field. So Hug him¬
self seemed, at that time, not to be particularly
upset at what had happened. And perhaps it had
dawned on him finally that something was bound
to happen given the war situation and the kill¬
ings and everything, but his mood has changed
since then a great deal.

What do you think was the most effective part of
either the demonstration or the obsetyance of
Governor’s Day?

Effective in what way?

Well, this is something you can interpret for your¬
self either the most positive or the most nega¬
tive.

Well, it did have a very negative effect of
causing a reaction that even the sociologists on
campus did not foresee. I had anticipated a reac¬
tion, but I had not anticipated people going into
wild-eyed hysteric fits over really nothing. I con¬
tinue to be disturbed, and, in fact, that’s why I’ve
mentioned that I’ll probably be leaving here.

All that happened on our campus that could
be accredited to students or faculty was the
Governor’s Day demonstration. I am not con¬
vinced that the fire bombings were done by stu¬
dents or faculty, although evidently both groups
have been indicted by some downtown, and the
regents are acting as if that is so in terms of their
recent actions and codes of conduct and what¬
not. The only thing that can really be attributed
to the students and faculty is the Governor’s Day
demonstration, and I would quote President Miller
here. He and I had a short discussion about this
matter two and a half weeks ago, and he said if
what happened here had happened at the Univer¬

sity of Michigan, his alma mater, that the editori¬
als in the local papers would have been praising
God for a peaceful week. And, in fact, nothing
did happen here, but people got so uptight that it
really was scary. When you get to thinking about
it, it’s very, very disconcerting—plus we have
some local politicians who would do anything to
secure votes, and they have decided to talk about
“commie” faculty members, of which I’ve never
seen one. That’s the negative aspect.

The other negative aspects are, I think, in the
long-term it has hurt the university. I don’t con¬
sider myself an especially scholarly or valuable
member of the staff, but I think that the reaction
of the regents and the people in this state can do
nothing but drive capable people away, particu¬
larly people in the social sciences. In the social
sciences you talk about society; you do not treat
it as something sacred that must be held up and
worshiped. Evidently, some in our state would
desire to do away with social science and behav¬
ioral sciences altogether. A great number of times
in the last two or three weeks, I’ve heard the uni¬
versity called “Nevada A & M,” and I think that
that’s what some people had in mind. So I think
it’s hurt the university in the long-run.

I will leave, and I know several others that
will leave after this year. That’s particularly, as I
said, perhaps no special loss—although, interest¬
ingly enough, I do chair some rather, I think, im¬
portant committees for the university in terms of
computing. I’m supposedly the computer nut in
the College of Arts and Science, and so they will
have to find another computer nut to chair their
committees and this kind of thing.

The positive aspect that I see is that, in fact,
for the first time the students did do something,
and it was successful—if you define success in
terms of numbers and interest aroused and what¬
not. This area is rather isolated, and, in fact, very
little happens here (as you probably noticed).
When something does happen, people get very
excited, but very little happens here. And as far
as I’m able to tell, this has been the first time that
the liberal-minded students have been able to ac¬
complish anything that was in any way success-

336

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

ful. That’s not to say that the students were unani¬
mous, because they were not. In fact, I think it
boils down to a majority of the arts and science
students against a majority of the other colleges,
although there are students in all colleges that
are against the war. In some colleges, like in ag¬
riculture, you would predict nearly all the stu¬
dents would be for the war and this kind of
thing—you know, they’re more conservative in
nature. But I was glad to see it from that stand¬
point.

I was also glad to see what happened, because
what happened was, in fact, a peaceful demon¬
stration. For the life of me, I just cannot under¬
stand why people get so upset because cars were
blocked for five minutes. And then even the dem¬
onstrators themselves cleared the way. No police¬
men were used or anything else. The blockage
was not longer than five minutes. I was there,
and I observed it, and students themselves were
actually trying to clear it. What happened at
Governor’s Day was really nothing, but it was a
successful demonstration, and I think it portends
things in the future. You know, by “portends
things in the future” I mean that there could be
other demonstrations.

I think some of the leaders are willing to give
the elections a chance, which means we have
about four months. When the elections are over,
if nothing has happened, then I think there will
be more demonstrations.

They’ve now seen that they can do something
in a fairly large-scale fashion, and if the regents
continue to overreact, they’ll have a cause, too.
They may get uptight about the code of conducts
even before the elections are over.

I understand that I’m fairly new here, this
being my second year, but I understand the re¬
gents have a history of doing rather important
things in the summer when the students and fac¬
ulty are not here: it’s called the summer tactic.
That’s the way I’ve heard it described. It’ll be
interesting to see if anything does happen this
fall in regard to what they’ve done at the last
meeting, with the code of conduct being insti¬
tuted.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various people involved up at the stadium
that day: the demonstrators, the ROTC, the uni¬
versity administration ?

Well, I’ve already answered that in a way.
Yes.

I can answer it more directly. I really think
the ceremony should have been canceled, because
you just cannot overlook the magnitude of the
events that precipitated what took place all over
the country—even given the fact that this is Ne¬
vada, which is very socially and culturally iso¬
lated. The last time I saw a count, 486 schools
were shut down that week due to demonstrations,
and some, as I’ve mentioned, by administrators,
faculty, and students in concert. So for us to
naively go ahead and have a ceremony honoring
anything associated with the military during that
week is, I think, a very grave error. And in my
own mind, it also has moral connotations. I look
at it as a moral issue, and it was a direct affront to
the feelings of a great number of people, I felt.
And that, again, to deny those people the right to
have their ceremony is perhaps not good. My only
comment there would be that if they want to have
a ceremony, they have to accept the consequences
of it. Very little would have happened on our cam¬
pus had it not been for them continuing to sched¬
ule Governor’s Day.

So, first off, I think it should have been can¬
celed. Next, I think that it should have been short¬
ened once the students got there. And, really, for
the record you should have someone from ROTC
(and I’m sure they would do this) come over and
read that interminable, laughable speech. It was
really awful in places, and I’ve mentioned one or
two of these.

And if you can imagine .... Well, I think
there were more people than the paper estimated.
Me, I kept hearing three hundred in the paper.
There were five to seven hundred students up
there. Maybe three hundred marched around the
hack, but there were a lot more up there who were

JAMES T. RICHARDSON

337

sympathetic with the demonstrators and didn’t
march, for one reason or another—probably fear,
not knowing what might happen. But for them to
look around and see more students against the
demonstration than onlookers at the demonstra¬
tion and ROTC troops together is, you know, just
poor judgment on their part.

Then, the decision not to let one of them have
the microphone for five minutes .... Hindsight
is always good, but I just feel that at that point
when we were trying to arrange this, there was a
time when the crowd was controllable. (And I
say “we” in a collective sense. I wasn’t down there
doing the talking—some of the students and a
few faculty were.) When it became so long, and
there was no access to the microphone, then the
situation got out of hand.

I do think that there could possibly have been
police used when the students got out on the field.
And if there was ever a decision made by some¬
one not to have them enter and try to separate the
groups, I think that was very wise. We had a dif¬
ficult time, but there were six or eight faculty and
students out there trying to keep the students from
molesting the ROTC boys, and we managed to
control the situation.

After the demonstration was over, I think the
regents erred by making heroes out of two gentle¬
men who really don’t deserve to be made heroes
of. They did the same thing earlier in the year
with the Jesse Sattwhite case. Jesse is really not
a very desirable hero either, but he is a hero, in
fact, now, to students and faculty alike, because
the regents took him on, and, in a sense, the re¬
gents came out the worse for it and made him a
hero.

I’m not sure what will happen with Adamian
and Maher, but that could’ve been handled a lot
neater. There’s also some very pressing question
in my mind about due process, because, in fact,
the professors are apparently guilty of some
crime, although their hearing has not begun yet.
I’m not even sure both have requested a hearing
yet. Anyway, they have been pronounced guilty
by the regents in so many words and by the local
press, so that there’s some question of due pro¬

cess here. But it was all unnecessary, I think. It
could have been handled a lot more discreetly.
There are ways of getting rid of people if you
don’t like them. You begin to get the idea in a
year or two, if you don’t get merit increases or
advances in rank, that they don’t like you around
here. That’s the subtle way of doing it. But I ac¬
tually think our president, who is a very capable
man, could have handled it much more nicely than
it was handled, but he made such a public issue
with those two. So I think the regents blew it. I
think they succumbed to public pressure.

No one made an attempt to organize pres¬
sure on the other side, although it could have been
counterproductive. There used to be a time when
boards of citizens helped administer universities
to protect the universities from the mob, because
the mob has never understood higher education
and what it was to do. They have certainly never
appreciated the fruits of higher education by these
ideas. Evidently, you’re not supposed to have
ideas in the University of Nevada.

In our situation, I think, not only do we see a
situation where our regents have succumbed to
the mob, they are leading the mob, and that is
going to be counterproductive in a way that I de¬
scribed earlier. They talk about screening new
faculty members. If capable people in my field
come to the university and are screened, they will
laugh and leave, just as I am going to leave. It’s a
little bit late to screen me, although, you know, I
wouldn’t be surprised if I decided to stay—I’ll
just have a little bit of trouble getting increases
in salary and rank because I tend to be vocifer¬
ous. But it’s really a joke to think about screen¬
ing faculty members. What you’re doing then is
hiring only those who agree to be screened, and
that’s the criterion that, in fact, will be used—
not scholarly ability. So if they want to do that,
that’s their business, but I think it’s a grave error.

Procter Hug was on TV last Friday, and he
talked about the faculty members as being em¬
ployees. And it’s fine to consider faculty mem¬
bers employees if you like, but somehow or an¬
other when you start using that terminology, ideas
of academic freedom get lost in the shuffle.

338

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

You're talking about hiring someone like you
would hire a grade school teacher to indoctrinate
kiddies to say the pledge of allegiance and things
like this; and, in fact, that’s not what we do. In
political science you are told how the system is
supposed to work. In sociology you’re told that
the system is not sacred and can be changed. And
I don’t know what you expect but that students
would learn these things. They even force them
to read that salacious, malicious document, the
Declaration of Independence, which says that if
the government is repressive, the constituency has
the right and the obligation to overthrow that
government. And, you know, when you tell people
that, sometimes they believe you. So I really think
that they’ve made some errors in this mess.

I would go on record as complimenting Presi¬
dent Miller. I think there may come a time when
he will perhaps put his job on the line and leave
in a blaze of glory. He’s doing all that they will
let him do to maintain this as a university. He is
an academician, and he appreciates the values of
the academic community. And I think the funda¬
mental problem he has is that, in fact, none of the
regents—or very few of the regents, or even the
chancellor himself—is an academician. The chan¬
cellor came here as secretary of the Nevada Tax¬
payers Association several years ago, and most
of the faculty members I know interpret him as
glorified bookkeeper, when, in fact, he makes
decisions about academic things when he has no
concept of academic values.

I have had encounters with him before. My
first year here I had a very difficult time. He and
the regents fired a couple of people associated
with the computing center, and I led a group of
faculty .... I wrote a statement that several
people signed, including four or five department
chairmen, and I read it in a faculty senate meet¬
ing with him there. It was, again, an issue that he
did not consult faculty when he fired them, and
he did not consult faculty when he hired to re¬
place them. There’s no appreciation for these
kinds of values, and that kind of mentality per¬
meates the regents, evidently. There are some on

there who are fairly perceptive, but the majority,
including the chairman, seem to have little ap¬
preciation for academic values. And I think that’s
very bad. (Is there some other part to this ques¬
tion?)

Why, I think you answered it very well. The next
question is one that you have kind of answered,
too. And it’s your reaction to the violence that
followed Governor’s Day—the fire bombings.

Oh. Well, as I said, I would have to be shown
that the students did that. All kinds of rumors are
floating around. I think there are a lot of people
in the community capable of the fire bombing,
particularly the bombing of the Hobbit Hole. That
could have been done by students, or it could have
been done by people downtown. It could have
been done by Senator Slattery, because he, in fact,
called for it that very day on the TV He went on
TV and said that he felt the cowboys should be
allowed to clean up the campus. And what we
may have seen is the cowboys, in fact, frying to
do their little bit to clean up the campus.

The one on the ROTC building—I’m very
suspicious of that for several reasons. I heard from
someone, and I can’t remember who told me this,
that the fire bomb was made out of kerosene. You
don’t make fire bombs out of kerosene if you’re
intent on burning anything; you make them out
of gasoline. Kerosene burns very slowly. I’m also
rather surprised that it was found so quickly, even
if it was a kerosene fire bomb, and put out so
handily by an available member of the campus
police. There are just a lot of things about it that
make me suspicious of whether or not it actually
occurred as it was told.

If it did occur as it was told, I don’t know
any students that would have done it, and I was
with them. I certainly don’t know faculty mem¬
bers that would have done it, even the two that
are being charged. All they did wrong, evidently,
was stand in front of some cars five minutes, and
then one of them led some chants. And one lady
used obscene language, which is all right some

JAMES T. RICHARDSON

339

places but not others. So I just don’t know of any¬
one that’s capable of . . . you know, has that kind
of mentality. That’s all I would say about that.

What category of participant in these affairs —
the students, the faculty, or outsiders—do you
think was most important in fomenting violence?

Oh, I don’t know because, like I say, the only
things that you can call violence arc the two fire
bombings. I’m just not sure who gets the credit
for those—unless you give it in an indirect, cir¬
cuitous fashion to President Nixon, you know.
Some have interpreted the Hobbit Hole bombing
as a retaliation of the first one, so that you go to
the first one and look for the cause of it. And this
kind of leads all the way back, perhaps, to Nixon,
as I’ve said.

There’s one very grave difference in the two
bombings, that should be noted for the record.
I’m sure other people have pointed it out. That
is, in one of them it was a crime against property,
and the other was a potential crime against life.
And there’s a fundamental problem in our soci¬
ety about appreciating the difference between
these two things. The problem erupts when you
shoot looters in the back during riots. Is the prop¬
erty more valuable than the life? Well, it’s very
obvious to anyone who has perception that prop¬
erty is, in fact, more valuable than some people’s
lives. We usually tend to think of black people or
Mexican-Americans in those categories of being
worth less than property. But in this situation we
saw someone take an action that had evaluated
the people in the Hobbit Hole, who were usually
asleep at this time, as being less valuable than
property.

In other words, it was attempted murder—
it’s the only way you can interpret the fire bomb¬
ing. If the person who did it was apprehended,
and they were put on the witness stand and said
under oath that they had checked for rear exits,
and they had, in fact, perhaps even been in the
Hobbit Hole (which is open all the time, anyone
can go in it), then perhaps the charge should be

dropped. For all they know, what windows were
there could have been nailed shut or fixed in some
way with weather stripping so that, in fact, there
was no other exit. So there was a tremendous dif¬
ference between those two fire bombings, and it
should be noted, particularly since Senator
Slattery seems to sanction the latter bombing.

Well, do you think outsiders were important?

Well, perhaps so. I kept hearing all week
about some guys from California. Never did see
them, you know, although I attended all the dem¬
onstrations and this kind of thing. The press made
a lot about outsiders, I think, partially because
the sons and daughters—or the people who write
those newspaper stories—couldn’t quite believe
that their sons and daughters would do it unless
they were provoked by Satan or some other
equivalent evil. So we had to blame someone,
you know, and it’s the old scapegoat tactic. In
fact, we’ve now figured out collectively that it’s
the liberal professors that have done it all, and so
we’ve got to do something about them. Slattery
made some comments about limiting out-of-state
enrollment, which again expressed and evidenced
his mentality. But one of the few bright things
about this campus is that a few kids from Cali¬
fornia do come over, and they’re typically more
awake than the Nevada student. But I really don’t
know of any outsiders.

I kept hearing a little bit about a few students
who were here, but I really never saw one, so I
can’t say. I certainly don’t have any truck with
any kind of theory of a nationwide conspiracy
that went around and stalled demonstrations at
486 campuses. I don’t know who in the hell would
pay the gas bill for the organization—if there were
such an organization, you know. One way to keep
the people in line is to point out that there’s a
commie under everyone’s bed, you know. I’m
twenty-eight and a half years old, and I’ve never
seen a commie yet. Although I’ve never met one,
I understand they’re very stuffy people, [laugh¬
ter]

340

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence in the situation that
followed the fire bombings?

Oh, I think Miller managed to cool things
down a little bit as best he could. The students
themselves recognized the counter-productivity
of violence. That’s why I say I don’t think any of
the students that were in the demonstration did
any of it because, in fact, this was their life. The
leaders of the demonstration were not even in
favor of the destruction at Governor’s Day. It got
to be a situation where they couldn’t keep it in
the stands anymore, and so, you know, then they
did the best they could once they got on the field.

The student leaders of the demonstration and
some student government leaders and Miller him¬
self helped cool the situation down. The public
and the regents did a lot of things to heat it up,
and so you had two things working against each
other. I know a lot of students were as shocked as
I at the tremendous overreaction that took place.
They really couldn’t believe it and were dismayed
again at the possibility of ever effecting any
change. In fact, the voters, the ones who can vote,
got upset, you know. I’d say 90 percent of the
ones in this state who can vote would say, “Fire
the liberal professors.” And the students don’t
have a vote or anything else, so they were really
shocked at this. I really think that the reaction to
what happened at Governor’s Day could have led
some students, perhaps, to react in such a way as
to throw the fire bomb at the ROTC building
(which I think took place on Thursday night).
There was an immediate and loud reaction in the
press and everything to Governor’s Day activi¬
ties. And it could have, you know, driven some
of them off the deep end, although I don’t know
who it would be, honestly. I was with the groups
after this, too, and either they lead two lives, or
they didn’t do it.

One other comment, though. I think some of
the faculty should be given credit for keeping cool
on Governor’s Day and for keeping cool after that.
There were a lot of informal meetings and what¬
not where people discussed with students and

with other faculty about what to do next, and the
faculty helped keep it cool. I know very few fac¬
ulty members—in fact, I don’t think I know any—
who advocate violence. I don’t know Maher and
Adamian that well, but they weren’t advocating
violence when I saw them. They were leading a
few chants, which is all right if you do it in ex¬
actly the same place at a football game, you know.
I mean, in fact, if three hundred students went
out on the field at a football game, it would be
the greatest thing that ever happened to school
spirit in the history of the university, but the same
action at another time will.... (Well, that’s di¬
gressing.)

How do think events on campus affect the
university’s image with outsiders? Image is a bad
word, but I think that we understand what we
mean.

Well, it depends on the outsider. For some
outsiders (and by that I mean people in the state
of Nevada), the typical person in the state of Ne¬
vada got very upset because, in fact, his son and
daughter were finally involved—or at least had
the opportunity of being involved—in one of
those damn student demonstrations. So for them
it was a very bad time. And particularly if their
son or daughter was involved, they didn’t know
exactly how to react. We’ve seen the fruits of that
in letters, telegrams, editorials in the paper and
the radio all condemning the university, whereas
I’ve pointed out I think they should be
complimented for keeping the lid on and keep¬
ing the school open.

For those people it did ruin the image of the
university. They evidently have some idea about
the university that it was isolated and immune
from things that happen in the world. And it may
have been at the time they attended, but, in fact,
it is not immune any longer. Although, you know,
if you want to fire the people and don’t hire those
people back or replacements for them, if you limit
enrollment to students from Nevada and maybe
even start screening those, then you’ll have a nice
little technical school here, and there will be no

JAMES T. RICHARDSON

341

demonstrations. You know, if that’s what they
want to do, that’s very fine with me.

For another group of people it finally vali¬
dated and showed some evidence, that this is, in
fact, a university where ideas are discussed and
people can express feelings and ideas. I happen
to be among that group. I was encouraged at the
peacefulness of the Governor’s Day thing and the
fact that it occurred. So then, rather, it validated
in my eyes this student body—and there being
hundreds of people in it who were aware of what’s
happening. It’s rather terrible to see a student body
that’s not aware, because they go do the dying,
and in some cases they go gladly. In our case
they’re not going so gladly anymore.

So, I’d say in the eyes of the academic com¬
munity around the country (and it would have to
be the community that’s even aware of there be¬
ing a university here), it did something to vali¬
date its position as a university. Actions since,
actions of the regents and the people here, per¬
haps have obviated that. For the students them¬
selves, I have said earlier that I think it proved
then that they could express an opinion. (I guess
that covers it for me.)

What can the university do to focus public opin¬
ion?

Well, they could do a lot more. They could
sponsor seminars. They could release teaching
time for people to, literally, even go downtown
to lead some discussions of issues and things of
this nature. We do, in fact, allow faculty mem¬
bers to go teach the police and things like this.
We’ve had one faculty member who has been lec¬
turing at the police department this year, in some
kind of class situation. But more of that kind of
thing seems to be essential in two regards: the
public relations regards, and in educating. Be¬
cause we’re not communists. We’re not “pinkos”
or whatever they are. We’re just people who

Interestingly, they’re not very educated.
That’s the funny part here. You won’t be able to
get educated, and you don’t want them once they
are educated. We’re seeing a funny thing hap¬

pen, I might comment real quickly. I have an aunt
in a junior high school in Texas, and she says
that a lot of parents are no longer preparing their
students to go to college, because they don’t like
what’s happening on college campuses. They
don’t want their children to become educated—
that’s a simple way of putting it. So they’re mak¬
ing their students take courses that lead into tech¬
nical school or business school or something like
that, and are not even having them take things
like language and such that would prepare them
for the university. That’s fine. I mean, it’s not fine,
but it’s happening because this society is finally
waking up to realize it doesn’t want educated
people running around loose, and the same thing
is happening in Nevada. Why don’t we just give
people a room in which they ask questions and
they have ideas?

Note

1. Original Letter to N. Edd Miller, dated May 6,1970,
in University Archives, University of Nevada, Reno
(AC 209). There are only minor differences between
the letter and Richardson’s reading of it.

Joseph H. Robertson

May 28, 1970

Well, I'm Joseph Robertson, professor of
range ecology. I’m an ecologist in the Agricul¬
ture Science Building, and this is my twenty-third
year at the University of Nevada and my thirtieth
year in Nevada. I was formerly chairman of the
Department of Plant Science for twelve years, and
I spent my sabbatical and another year in east
Africa. When I came back I was no longer chair¬
man of the department, and there had been con¬
siderable reorganization of departments by that
time.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Probably because of my long tenure here,
possibly because I'm faculty of College of Agri¬
culture. And with the cowboys and the aggies and
so forth the name had been perhaps given.

OK. What was your reaction to President Nixon’s
decision to send troops into Cambodia ?

My first reaction was that certainly he felt
justified. And he’d been convinced by the Penta¬
gon, I think. Incidentally, I'm afraid the Penta¬

gon is making too many of our decisions. But my
second reaction was the credibility gap that
sounds very much like 1964 or 1965 when we
were first sending troops, with perfectly good
reasons, of course, into Vietnam, and look what
has happened. Many times we’ve been disillu¬
sioned by reports of people coming back from
the military, saying, “It’ll soon be over,” and all
this.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
affected what happened next on the university
campus?

Oh! Well, I think that there was certainly a
relationship or a connection. I feel the students . . .
and as I had my second reaction, most of them
must have had that as their first reaction of, “Here
we go again. Now, how long will it be? Another
five years? Is it all Indochina? Is it China?”

There is no military victory possible we’ve
been told all this time. But still we get more deeply
involved militarily. It’s very frustrating and con¬
fusing. I’m sure I don’t have all the answers; I
don’t think anybody does.

Do you think that that was the primary reason
for what happened on the campus here, or do you

344

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Joseph Robertson, 1953.

think that things had been boiling up for a long
time, or a combination, or what?

Well, I think we were influenced by what we
know that’s happened on other campuses, too:
it’s a sympathetic reaction. That’s why. The re¬
gents, are aware of what’s happening to other re¬
gents—I mean, the position that the regents are
in. So they’re reacting sympathetically, overre¬
acting, but ....

What was your reaction to events that happened
in other parts of the country over the Cambodia
decision, such as Kent State or in the South ?

Well, of course, I thought Kent State was
horrible. As more information came out, it be¬
came more evident that the National Guard re¬
acted in fear and terror and without discipline, or
under the wrong commands, or something like
that. Apparently they were firing wildly, and when
you realize that no guardsmen were injured, you
really wonder. Apparently police departments are

much better able to handle situations like this than
the National Guard did or the staff guard. I feel it
was terrible, in spite of what even my friends say
and some of the students I work with. They feel
it was fully justified. This terrifies me to realize
that people that I know this well take such a posi¬
tion.

Why do you feel that they would take that kind of
a position?

Well. now. understand I’m working with ag¬
ricultural students, and agricultural students don’t
have the same feeling about the whole situation,
about Vietnam that many arts and science stu¬
dents have. I believe I understand why—the ag
students have led a different life. All the way
through they have had a sense of accomplishment.
Maybe it wasn’t any more than preparing a calf
for a show. Maybe it was even quite a bit more,
like producing a crop of hay or shipping a truck-
load of cattle to market. They feel that their life
is—from year to year—being fulfilled, and they
want to get an education that’s going to continue
the kind of life they’ve had.

Well, on the other hand, even my own chil¬
dren growing up here in Reno, my younger ones
now—I’m unable to provide them with the kind
of life where they will feel satisfaction and ac¬
complishment, and I think this is a trouble with
many of the arts and science students. They’re
more aware than the ag students are, because the
ag students are shielded from this kind of aware¬
ness by their busyness with their daily activities.
You might have noticed that a high proportion of
the second lieutenants come from the Ag Depart¬
ment. I think last time there was a commission,
six of the thirteen were aggies. Well, you know
this is far out of proportion to the college, and
the university.

Yes, that’s a very good point. Very good point.
Regarding the Governor’s Day activities, what
did you think of the arrangements for the obser¬
vances—the general arrangements that were
made ?

JOSEPH H. ROBERTSON

345

Well, I was busy with my activities over in
the ag college, and I didn’t attend. I’ve been get¬
ting a special invitation other years as the chair¬
man of the military parade and review board. I’m
no longer chairman. I didn’t get the special invi¬
tation. I was too busy—I didn’t go. So everything
I know is what I read and what the students re¬
layed back. And they came back pretty quick with,
you know, the sad story of what happened and
full of bitterness, especially the ones that were in
uniform.

Then the reaction over there was pretty negative
as a whole ?

Oh, it was very—I would say, 90 percent—
negative, and staff pretty much the same way.
Certainly the students who have been there in
uniform and their buddies, their friends ....

Yes. Perhaps you ’cl rather not comment on evalu¬
ations from hearsay, but from what you ’ ve heard
about the incident, could this have been preven ted
or could other preparations have been made to
prevent this kind of things from happening? Or
do you think it was a bad thing? Perhaps you
expected something like this to happen.

Well, I hadn’t given it much thought, and so
I wouldn’t say I expected it. What happened, I
think, was an annoying thing, but to take elabo¬
rate precautions to prevent it from happening
might have been worse. I don’t judge the two
people who have been accused on the basis of
what was there, because I didn’t see it.

But one of these people I’ve seen in these
meetings—five or ten of these mass meetings over
here in the Center and in the dining commons. I
have a lot of respect for the president, and I feel
that he was too insulting to the president. I’m on
a committee with this man, and he is probably a
very sensitive man, but also volatile. He reacts,
and he speaks violently, even, you know, disre¬
spectfully. I don’t believe I should say anymore
about that.

OK. What was your reaction to what happened
following Governor’s Day: the bombing at the
ROTC and the Hobbit Hole and these incidents?
How do you feel about those?

Well, it makes me sick. Even the second one
made me sicker than the first one, for some rea¬
son. I suppose maybe it did more damage on pri¬
vate property. It’s a threat to the community out¬
side the university, and I could see where this is
going to bring on repression. This is what we have
to worry about in the university. We should try to
stay in a position to take care of these things our¬
selves at some level, either the students, faculty,
or administration, because when it gets kicked
outside like this, then—you know—taxpayers,
politicians, regents, everybody ....

It’s a grab. Or they either feel it’s their re¬
sponsibility, like perhaps the regents do, or they
feel the chance for votes, for publicity, like many
politicians do. And then we lose our autonomy
in the university. This is the thing to be feared.
This can ruin us, I feel.

What about the image of the university? What do
you think happened to the image of the univer¬
sity as a result of these things?

Well, I think it was diminished. I think it
shows that many people have never had much
confidence in the university. That’s what I feel.
When such a small thing could almost bring down
the house, it’s telling you how the regents and
the editors of newspapers and people like that
are taking after us and, you know, belittling us. I
feel our image must not have been as good as I
felt it was. I think they’ve shown lack of confi¬
dence, the people on the outside and the people
at the top. I have much more confidence in the
administration to handle this, to work with the
student administration and the faculty, the AAUP.
Anybody like this, I think, can make a contribu¬
tion, can get together. But if we have to defend
ourselves against the people on the outside, then
we can’t work together on the inside.

346

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Right , that’s very true. Do you think there will be
any kind of long-range results from this—you
know, between the community and the college?
Do you think this will create any long-term diffi¬
culties?

Well, I think anybody who feels he’s in a
position to use this, or a person who has a linger¬
ing fear for the university or about things here,
or a continued lack of confidence, these things
will probably hang on for several years.

For example, the thing of non-resident stu¬
dents somebody has already suggested, “We got
too many non-resident students here.” Well, I
think this is a bad attitude for a university. I feel
non-resident students are a good thing to have
here, as a general thing. I'm not talking about
individuals. So we don’t have, for example, a
domestic student exchange program, which I was
hoping we could get. I think people will use this
or oppose non-resident student exchange for this
reason: “I’m afraid we’ll get some bad apples
here.”

Do you feel that outsiders were involved in this
recent demonstration to a large extent? And
maybe you could sort of generalize the way you
feel about .... In most campus disturbances do
you feel that there are predominantly a large num¬
ber of outsiders?

I am afraid there may be people, and I have
no idea who they are, but it’s quite possible there
are people who try to wreck an institution by first
firing the ROTC building and then the Hobbit
Hole. Now, this would be a great way to just get
the confrontation going here and the fighting in¬
side and bring down the people from the outside
on us. So if the people are enemies—if we have
enemies—they’re as clever as we always contend
they are. They really pulled the right thing. I don’t
know if this is true or not. Maybe. Maybe as the
ag said, “Well, that’s in retaliation, and that serves
them right.” Some of the aggie students have that
reaction.

What actions or who do you think was particu¬
larly helpful in preventing more violence than
actually occurred? Or do you think there was
anyone that sort of held things down? Since you
weren’t there on Governor’s Day, it might be kind
of difficult to judge, but from hearsay perhaps.
Do you think there’s anyone that’s done a par¬
ticularly outstanding job, let’s say, in those tense
weeks there to keep things cool on the campus?

Well, I feel that the president of the univer¬
sity and the president of ASUN have done all they
can to be effective. I believe the reaction of the
men at the Hobbit Hole after that was quite good,
quite civilized. I didn’t see or hear anything
vengeful quoted from them. I didn’t hear anything
like that. It was more sorrowful, I think.

What function do you think the university ought
to have in focusing public opinion? Should they
have a function in focusing public opinion or in¬
fluencing public opinion, for that matter?

Oh, definitely. They should certainly try to
ensure they’re effective. I think Frankie Sue [Del
Papa] and President Miller going on television—
a lot of people saw that, and I think that was good
for public opinion. To your previous question I
think I should also mention the attitude of the
ROTC people at the Governor’s Day. I think they
deserve a lot of credit for holding steady. Maybe
this could have been disastrous right there if
they’d have even flickered an eyelid.

Yes, true. What do you think the function is of a
university? Do they have a political function, and
if so, what, or if not, why?

I think that the faculty of a university should
be active politically as individuals, but I don’t
think any department, any organized group, or
the university itself should be politically active—
especially partisan politics. You can’t do it, and
most any political issue quickly becomes parti¬
san. But to say that no faculty member or no staff

JOSEPH H. ROBERTSON

347

member of the university should be politically
active is, I think, wrong, because any of us here
have real political interests and understanding, I
hope.

Yes, so at least as individuals they can; but oth¬
erwise, it’s best to remain neutral if possible. What
about students? Should a campus be a place for
political ferment or social action as far as the
students are concerned?

Yes. And I think the students can even go a
step farther than faculty. I mean, the Young Re¬
publicans or Young Democrats, the Young Inde¬
pendent Americans, or whatever you want can
have a party. I should think they’d be allowed to
meet on the campus and so forth. There is quite a
heavy national process.

What do you think will be the direction of the
peace movements in this area now? Do you think
that there will be an increase in activity or a de¬
crease ?

I don’t know. Probably an increase.

An increase?

I think, but I’m not sure. I mean, I don’t know
how things are going to go in the next few weeks
here. Some things will depend on what decisions
are made regarding the people that have been ....
How would you say? Have they been indicted?
Not exactly, was it?

No, I don't think so.

Well, they’ve been charged.

Right, right. In what way can the students and
faculty be most effective politically, do you feel?
What about a faculty member? How can he be
effective politically? You touched on this a little
bit ....

Well, I think some of the extreme faculty
members here are effective politically, because

they help to create tension. I don’t believe there
are many solutions to problems today without
tension. Unless some people in the South had in¬
sisted on sitting in the front of the bus, or going
into a hamburger stand and waiting until they’re
served—it’s creating tension. It started things
moving. So this is one way to be effective politi¬
cally.

Yet, of course, if lots of tension reaches a
stage of violence, then, at that point, you can’t
have reconciliation; you can’t have effective judg¬
ment or anything. So what we’re looking for is
somewhere between a complete unawareness and
being dead on our feet or seat, and the other ex¬
treme of knocking someone’s heads off.

If we could come to some balance somewhere
around in the middle there and keep enough ten¬
sion so people are aware that it could go up, it
may go up, and if there’s a problem, then we bet¬
ter get on it. This is it. Most faculty members, I
think, prefer to work through the process, and they
should go to the precinct meetings. They should
get to the county meetings and all those political
meetings and everything.

Students in your area, in agriculture and the re¬
lated fields, do you think that they are politically
aware? Do you think most of them are keeping
politically aware now?

Let’s say they are more aware than they were
before Governor’s Day. This is one good thing, I
think, that happened on Governor’s Day: it made
students over in our college take notice, take sides,
and some of them would listen to the other side.
They never had before. And they never had any
respect for the other side. They thought that it
was an insult to be required to take an English
course under somebody with long hair, or with a
beard. This was obnoxious, and they couldn’t tol¬
erate it. That’s what they felt.

And do you think some of them have changed in
their attitude toward that?

A little, a little.

348

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

A little?

Yes, because they have less than a little.

So you think some very positive things may have
come out of this, all of this.

In that direction, yes. And I hope it’s going
to happen in the other direction, too. I hope that
someday the radicals, the extremes, and the agi¬
tators, the dissenters, and so forth maybe realize
why the so-called cowboys are so far away from
them. I hope they understand each other a little
better.

Are there any other comments that you ’cl like to
make? Any general comments or anything?

Well, one. I think most of our trouble dates
to the Vietnam war, and now the Indonesian war
and Indochina war. This comes out of a long-time,
ill-conceived foreign policy that we have, which
is to support stable governments all over the
world. If we think they’re stable, we think they’re
no threat to us, no matter how unpopular they are
with their people, no matter how graft-ridden they
are, and no matter how violent of a dictatorship.

Then, we insult the intelligence of people,
and the students especially—our government
does—when they say, “Well, the Domino Theory.
Well, then, all we want is for the people of Viet¬
nam to be able to choose then - own leaders, to
choose their own government.” Now, this is
phony, because we don’t care if the people of Haiti
choose their own government. We know, right
here at our back door, it’s one of the most vicious
dictatorships in the world. There’s no question
about it.

Paraguay, another violent dictatorship. I spent
two nights in South America in 1962, and I fried
to talk politics everywhere I went. And people
loved Kennedy. They said, “Why does he sup¬
port all the dictators?” I talked to communists and
Peronists and everybody down there about it,
when I had the chance to. “Why does he support
the dictators?” So this is what happens: we sup¬

port an unpopular government that gets over¬
turned. Well, either we pull out and let it go, or
we tty to save it. If we tty to save it, we either
move in quickly and smash it like the Dominican
Republic, or we move in little by little—like in
Indochina. We can’t do it.

Very good point. Do you have anything else you 'd
like to add?

No, I think I’ve said too much.

Oh, no. No, not at all. It’s very fine.

Charles W. Ross

June 1, 1970

Now, for the record would you like to give your
name, your faculty position, hometown and so
forth ?

My name is Charles W. Ross, and I’m an as¬
sociate professor of art and chairman of the Art
Department. My residence in Nevada has been
for the major part of my life, which may have
some pertinence to what has taken place here.

And why do you think you were chosen to be in¬
terviewed?

I suppose because I have, to some degree,
been involved at various levels in the situation
that has taken place, the situations of the last two
months. It’d just be a guess, anyway.

What was your own reaction to President Nixon’s
decision to move troops into Cambodia ?

I was full of disbelief—that was my first feel¬
ing. The pronouncements preceding the move
seemed to indicate that we were doing as many
of us believed, and that was to effect our removal

from Vietnam in a phased kind of way. Then,
particularly' because of the Secretary of Defense’s
statement that American troops would not be used
in Cambodia—without the reference to Con¬
gress—and it is to happen suddenly. It seems to
be a little higher and arbitrary in nature and cer¬
tainly against our best interests. There was a kind
of outrage in it.

In what way do you think this decision about send¬
ing troops into Cambodia was related to what
happened next on the University of Nevada, Reno
campus?

It’s very difficult to think of the Cambodian
situation without also referring to the Kent State
situation, both coming at a time when perhaps
patience particularly was running out. It was
coupled, also, with the general attitudes of the
vice president and finally, the president, toward
students involved, in a sense. It all seemed to add
up to a situation which was quickly becoming
intolerable.

And then you do believe, of course, that what
happened here was related definitely to what hap¬
pened on other campuses?

350

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Charles Ross, 1970s.

Oh, yes. I think it’s ....

Yes. Well, that takes care of the next little ques¬
tion I have, [laughter]

What you’re requesting is important. There
was a phenomenon that occurred, I think, at this
time. I think we learned about instant communi¬
cation as we had perhaps not ever quite known
of it before. One of the things that did happen
nationally, and perhaps even internationally, was
a sense of community in which each person felt
their concerns were shared by many, many oth¬
ers. I think this was one of the contributing fac¬
tors to what we saw nationally, at least, and cer¬
tainly on this campus.

Regarding the Governor ’.v Day activities here on
this campus, what did you think of the arrange¬
ments for the observances, what was your reac¬
tion to the demonstrations, and did you feel it
was necessary? Did you feel obligated to par¬
ticipate, or were you simply a spectator, or did
you have personal reactions to it?

Well, I had many reactions, and there were
mixed emotions. Like, I understand, on one hand,
why the Governor’s Day annual observance has
some importance for the university in terms of
tradition. And it was also, somewhat irrationally
I guessed, that we would continue the practice in
light of what had happened. My own involvement
was more of a private nature than public, although
I did march up to the stadium with the people.
My greatest concern was what might happen, and
I felt here I needed to be an involved observer,
because I was afraid that there would be prob¬
lems coming out of the demonstration—and as
we’ve seen there were. I was perhaps more con¬
cerned there might be a degree of violence, which
there was unfortunately.

I think the demonstration viewed from one
point of view—that is, in terms of contemporary
dissent—was a very mild affair. In terms of the
university itself and its experiences with demon¬
strations, it was perhaps shattering to many
people. So I think the conflict that emerged from
it is understandable, and I think we all can under¬
stand it would happen in some way. A sense of
reaction to the demonstrators was inevitable, it
seemed.

Yes, OK. Weil, then what was your reaction to
the violence that followed: the fire bombing of
first, the ROTC building, and then Hobbit Hole?

The ROTC building did not surprise me in
the least. I think this was personally the result of
participating in varying degrees in what was hap¬
pening on campus—the attempt of students and
faculty to somehow get together and talk and see
what was happening. So the problems within the
attempt to talk at the initial stages were very dif¬
ficult; there was kind of a traumatic situation and
various factions on the campus coming together.
And this, coupled with what seemed to me to be
a certain insensitivity on the paid of the adminis¬
tration, almost made the potential of an attempt
to bomb Hartman Hall very real.

I left one afternoon talk session at the stu¬
dent union fully expecting something like this to

CHARLES W. ROSS

351

happen. In fact, it was the afternoon and then the
evening following a student senate meeting. The
progress toward relating to each other simply
hadn’t gone far enough, and there had been noth¬
ing coming from the administration to help re¬
solve the situation. What did come a day later
was effective but belated; it was, in a sense, too
little and too late, I felt. We’re just fortunate the
building wasn’t burned down completely.

Then how does that relate, or does it in anyway,
to the bombing of Hobbit Hole?

This is something that has me completely
puzzled. It seems, it would appear . . . and this is
purely conjecture—this is not fair to suggest any¬
one particular was responsible for it.

But because it was the Hobbit Hole, and be¬
cause it had been a center of communication for
the strikers and for, to some degree, the dissent¬
ers, one could suspect that more conservative el¬
ements on campus might have been involved.
However, in what was taking place at that time,
it took the students on campus to work out con¬
structive and peaceful means to resolve problems.
This suggests that if it were this group, it would
have to be the extreme event, just as if it were the
dissenters who fire bombed Hartman Hall. It just
had to be of the extremes. I think the events that
followed suggest to us that isolation of extremes
had taken place rather rapidly and quite effec¬
tively. My guess is the bombing of the Hobbit
Hole was not any part of the so-called cowboys
as a group. It may have been one or two. They
had reasons of their own to get even, just as, I
think, Hartman Hall had—which I’m convinced
was done by non-students now from information
we’ve had. But whatever happened, I think, was
done by extremists and the number of these ex¬
tremists probably not more than twenty or thirty
on this campus at the most. I doubt there are that
many.

Well, that kind of leads into the next question
we ’ve been asking: What category of participant
do you believe was the most active in fomen ting

any of this violence? Was it faculty or student or
outsider? The outsiders have been mentioned, and
you spoke to that some.

Yes. Not because I'm trying to protect the
faculty at all, because I’ve been very disappointed
in the faculty in just, you know, in many ways in
what’s happened on campus—although there
were a number who worked very hard to keep
things together. I don’t think faculty, in any sense,
were the fomenters of the problem here. I think,
on the extreme left, the group that attempted very
strongly but failed to create more problems, cre¬
ate more trouble, were not students—a group of
some ten or twelve who appeared on campus out
of nowhere.

I think on the other extreme we have a long
history of such groups as the Sundowners, who
have not shown the most responsibility in their
actions and who might be related to this non-stu¬
dent group. It seems to me that there was very
little action by anyone that would have led to
anything but peaceful dissent. I'm tremendously
impressed with the ability of this campus to keep
its cool during this period, and the attempts, pri¬
marily by students again, to pull together.

I think one of the serious mistakes we will
make is to view what happened on this campus
as events that would have led to potential vio¬
lence, because I think violence was ruled out al¬
most from the very beginning on this campus and
essentially through serious efforts by a number
of people and, again, primarily students.

You’ve almost answered this next one. I’ll ask it
just in case you might want to expand upon it.
What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence or cooling off the situ¬
ation ? You spoke of the people, mostly studen ts,
who prevented it. Was there any particular ac¬
tion ?

I think the credit would have to go probably
to a small group of the dissenters, who I suppose
would have to be labeled somewhat to the left,
but not far to the left—students like Dan Teglia

352

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

and others, a couple of faculty members. Prob¬
ably Ben Hazard would be one of these who
worked very, very hard to keep talk going. The
other person, I think, who was probably in some
way as effective as anyone else was John Dodson,
from the Center. John spent hours and hours work¬
ing with, moderating, leading, rap sessions. I think
this attempt to talk things out and the efforts made
by these people to set up accommodations for
such talk was probably the most important as¬
pect of the whole affair.

In contrast to this, I feel very strongly that
the administration and the faculty as a body re¬
ally failed to live up to their responsibilities. I
think this earned right to the brink of a serious
situation. If the students hadn’t gotten a hold of
it as they did, in time, it could have gone much
further than it did.

This may or may not seem important to you—I
don’t know. How do you think events on campus
affect the university’s image with outsiders?

I think as predictable as the possible bomb¬
ing of Hartman Hall, the response from the im¬
mediate community and the state was completely
inevitable. But even here I was taken aback by
what seems to be the inability of the community
at large to understand what is happening here in
context and what has been happening nationally.
The overreaction was considerably more than I
expected, and I think the state has an awful lot to
learn. This is not over yet by a long shot.

Well, then what function does the university have
in focusing public opinion?

I think it’s become increasingly clear that the
university has been a very strong barometer of
what is happening to people collectively, at least
nationally and—undoubtedly again—internation¬
ally. That if anything, the university, despite the
problems it will have to go through, hopefully
will be able to educate the state to its need to
respond to conditions that simply cannot be ig¬
nored. I suppose in the same way the university

has always had the responsibility—not always,
not just our university, but the university as an
institution—and they not always live up to it. It
must take these gambles and these risks to ap¬
prise those students that are responsible of what¬
ever it is that has to be said and done.

The state of Nevada has been so conserva¬
tive and so protected, and unfortunately provin¬
cial. And the shocks that have already taken place
and the shocks ahead, I think, are going to force
it in one way or another to realize it is paid of the
world, and it has to respond to that world con¬
structively. Does that seem to answer that ques¬
tion?

Well, the university does, by your words, have a
job to do to focus public opinion, you think — defi¬
nitely within this state anyway?

I think at least it has to provide those issues
in clearer terms that have to be met. And I think
that’s one of the things that has happened recently.
Preceding the Kent State and the Cambodian situ¬
ation was a serious unrest of a number of stu¬
dents on this campus, particularly minority stu¬
dents and particularly black students. And this
certainly reflects a condition that exists in the state
and has existed for a long, long time.

I think the university must understand that
even though it’ll run into opposition, and some¬
times very strenuous opposition, it should not
attempt to stifle the kinds of dialogue and dis¬
cussion, and even actions, that may be contrary
to traditional modes, because if we do not have
these valves to release these frustrations, then they
are going to be released in much more serious
and much more violent forms.

The state simply, I think, is going to have to
accommodate it, because nothing you can do,
really, is going to prevent it. They can place all
the National Guard troops on this campus they
want, and we may have the same tragedy as hap¬
pened elsewhere. It just isn’t possible to stifle it.
The proposals by chairman Hug of the regents
for a code of conduct are simply not going to work
when the frustrations become too great. They’re

CHARLES W. ROSS

353

just going to build up. I’m afraid, issues which
will become greater than they really should be.

And that leads beautifully into the next thing I
want to ask you then. Do you feel the issues of
academic freedom are involved in participation
in demonstrations of this sort?

Yes, I do, and I fully recognize the dangers
of talking about academic freedom, particularly
in the loose sense it has been used in recent
months, and perhaps even years. The fundamen¬
tal of academic freedom is the responsibility—
not the privilege—of anyone connected to the
university community to speak and to do as he
feels he must. Now, always will be the possibil¬
ity that he can conceivably overstep a traditional
interpretation of whatever the academic freedom
is, and I think like all law and like all custom, we
must constantly review our interpretations of what
anything means. In this case academic freedom
is one of them.

I think it’s a very, very serious situation that’s
developing now, because not only locally but
nationally there are serious attempts to control—
and I mean control in the negative sense—the tra¬
ditional means and outlets for voicing one’s opin¬
ions and to act on those opinions. If that ever hap¬
pens beyond a certain point, the university dies,
literally, as an institution and becomes something
else altogether.

And I think this is one of the dangers we’re
in right now. We’ve watched in the last several
months, in the name of expediency, legal instru¬
ments violated to accommodate the immediate
need. The ASUN constitution, I believe, was se¬
riously violated. The proposal before the regents
at this next session—Chairman Hug’s—to bypass
the normal procedures by which such things as
he proposed are done sets a precedent for this to
happen again and again and again. What worries
me here is that we may be facing an issue that is
going to cause more problems than anything to
date has caused: the attempt to censor student pub¬
lications. And I would argue forever that always
this is exactly what happens .... When you start

talking about funds that go to the publication of
that paper being possibly cut off, and that inferred,
this has to be a form of censorship, and it’s in
direct violation of the very thing that was accepted
after two years of serious effort on this campus
with the student bill of rights. So, we’re still go¬
ing through the problems that were started on this
year, and I don’t see it ending with summer com¬
ing.

How can the faculty, or students if you want to
talk about them, be effective politically? Should
they attempt to influence political or governmen t
policies?

I think that’s part of the bigger question,
which is being argued very seriously today, and
that is the question of the neutrality of the insti¬
tution. I don’t see how any of this—and this may
include students and faculty of the university—
can remain apolitical in the times we’re living in,
because, in a sense, it’s a spiritual survival, and
perhaps even physical survival depends upon it.

I certainly feel that every encouragement
ought to be given to everyone connected with the
university community to act as they feel they must
politically. The question whether or not the insti¬
tution itself—or as a body, the faculty, or as a
body, the students—should take positions cer¬
tainly is debatable. I find myself at cross puiposes
here. On the one hand, I would like to see a large
group of people, for instance, the entire faculty,
assume the position I assume politically to make
me feel less like a pariah, I suppose.

But I think something may be seriously dam¬
aged if this happens. I suppose the faculty as a
whole, the student body as a whole, and perhaps
the institution as a whole ought to sidestep the
issue of taking a position officially but encour¬
age the individuals within it to gather into what¬
ever collective groups they want to and to very
actively foster. Essentially, we may endanger the
institution in a way we don’t see if we demand it,
if as an institution and components of that insti¬
tution, we act politically.

354

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, the question was for the individual.

But in the case of the individual, I think, yes.
I think everything ought to be fostered beyond
what we do now. Now, how it’s done in the class¬
room, how it’s done outside the classroom, again
raises those serious questions of what is the re¬
sponsibility of the university and the individual
faculty members in terms of instructional focuses.

It does seem to me that there are very few
fields where one can sidestep those issues which
are contemporary, whether they be political or
economic or aesthetic or philosophic. So I think
we need to look upon what is taught in the class¬
room in a very broad sense. That is, the instruc¬
tor must be allowed to bring, into whatever it is
he’s teaching, those references to contemporary
society and contemporary events that are relevant
to that subject. And I think this leaves much room
to deal with the contemporary world as well as
the subject matter that’s involved.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is
a serious danger of using a classroom as a forum
for one point of view or another, and I think this
must be avoided at all costs. But if there can be
affected a rational and objective discussion and
learning process that deals with whatever there
is to deal with, then I think we will continue what
the university must have, must do, and has al¬
ways done.

The peace movement in this area that we ’ve heard
of—an organization of students calling itself the
peace movement—where is it going?

My guess is—and this is really guessing be¬
cause it’s, again, like the national movement—
but it seems to me that the peace movement is
moving away from highly abstract and philo¬
sophic positions and into arenas of action, that
is, political action. A group of students who are
attempting to get a certificate of election to place
Charles Springer’s name on the ballot in the fall
election is a sample of this. I think the peace
movement is probably stronger now than it has

ever been, and it corresponds with something of
the national response to the peace movement.

I think it has changed its mode of operation
to a fairly large degree. It has become realistic
and understood that if there is to be peace, it’s
going to have to be done in a highly pragmatic
way and in a way which gets to the heart of the
operation of how peace and war are instituted by
a nation. I look for less abstract and philosophic
attitudes on the part of people who are concerned
about peace and far more activity politically—in
the broadest sense of simply going out and at¬
tempting to talk to individuals in the community
and appraisal at least of the facts for you, per¬
haps what is happening.

And do you have any other commen ts which you ’d
like to put on record?

Yes, I do. I think the situation that we have
gone through in the last four or five months may
well be the pattern that most institutions have
gone through. It seems it was a little bit frighten¬
ing at least to realize that we have watched insti¬
tution after institution go through this and not
have them far better prepared to deal with it than
we were.

I think we’re still facing that, except for a
situation which is highly explosive—what is
about to take place and may take place at the next
Board of Regents meeting—it may place students
on the one hand and faculty on the other, or per¬
haps even collectively on a head-on collision
course with the regents. A change in the nature
of how a university is governed may be the out¬
come of this. I think my response to it during the
spring semester has been that there’s a serious
vacuum of leadership on this campus now. I’m
not sure that’s what has happened on other cam¬
puses entirely or not. But I found that we have
been officially reacting considerably after what¬
ever accident that we were concerned about has
taken place.

Oh, I think we should have been sensitive
enough to the situation to have been able some-

CHARLES W. ROSS

355

how to lessen the build-up of frustrations that
were taking place, and of course, something like
these pessimistic moments. I’m convinced we
must not lie awake at night trying to figure out
how to make the situation more difficult. It
doesn’t seem possible that we could not have pre¬
vented some of the things that have taken place
here: some of the anger, some of the feelings of
hopelessness and futility that have emerged this
spring. I do think that whoever it is—and in the
process this means everybody, but certainly those
people in official positions—must learn to act,
and act constructively, and plan ahead. I think
one of the ways is that they’ll have to listen to
find out really what is happening more quickly
than they do. There seems to be a bad consensus,
or a poor means of communication, on this cam¬
pus—that oftentimes those who need to have in¬
formation receive it much too late, or at least they
act on it much too late.

Elmer R. Rusco

May 29, 1970

So just for the record if you ’ll say your name and
your residence and your position.

Elmer Rusco, and I'm . . . Well, and I have
to say my residence, [laughter] I'm just the slow¬
est in California, and I'm a member of the gradu¬
ating committee of the AAUP chapter this year,
because I was president last year, and the week
after was not involved with it anymore.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

I assume because this connection with AAUP
is made in some statements and will undoubtedly
have to do with some other things.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia ?

Well, I thought and think of it as a catastro¬
phe, because it has the effect of widening the war,
and therefore making it less likely that the war
can be ended. I just read recently two articles by
Hans [J.] Morgenthau and George McT[urnan]

Kahin that argue this, and those are experts in
that particular area and also in international poli¬
tics.

And this is what I felt was the situation. I
just felt that it was a really bad decision, unlikely
to do what the President thought it would do
there—exactly the opposite.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

Well, there’s no doubt that it was the primary
reason for student unrest and also faculty unrest.
During that week around the country there were
about two hundred schools that were closed and
violent, and more than two hundred others that
were partly closed by shots all because of Cam¬
bodia. We were getting the same thing here, only
a much milder form. But the reaction to the war
in both students and faculty is less here. Fewer
people are reacting here, but, essentially, the same
thing is happening elsewhere around the coun¬
try. Obviously, that’s what the basic situation was.

The accidental timing of the two things were
very bad for us: one was that Governor’s Day
happened to hit just after that; and the second

358

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Elmer Rusco, 1985.

was that the regents meeting happened to hit just
after Governor’s Day. If there hadn’t been the
particular timing. I’m afraid we probably
wouldn’t have had any trouble at all, I think. The
results would probably have been different.

What was your reaction to the events in other
parts of the country related to the Cambodia de¬
cision?

Well, I was probably surprised at the extent
of the reaction around the country. I was not sur¬
prised that universities would be as corrosive at
the scene, that it really wouldn’t go so far. Well,
some of the schools, you know, Princeton and
Mills, are closed down for the rest of the semes¬
ter, and Princeton is going to let the students out
for a couple of weeks in the fall.

It is mobilized, more than any other event I
am aware of, and I was surprised at the degree to
which this reaction occurred around the country.

Also, this was, of course, due to the killing of the
four students at Kent State on Monday. It was
partly the reason the reaction was so extensive.
In general, I mean, I have a conflict over this kind
of thing, because while I approve of the objec¬
tives and think that is highly desirable that we do
everything we can to end the war, I also think
that universities shouldn’t be solely devoted to
any objective in society.

My position is the university should be in¬
volved with all sorts of things in the society.
They’re into society. They already are. To a cer¬
tain extent I think they should be. But I don’t think
they should be closed down, for example, ide¬
ally, because of any event in the community. So I
have a conflict over the extent of the reaction. I
prefer the reaction that occurred on this campus,
as a matter of fact, in which people expressed
their sentiments and tried, at least, to talk about
the issues, but it didn’t really cause any signifi¬
cant disruption. We’ll get to this later, but I don’t
think any significant disruption of anything oc¬
curred on this campus as far as I can see at this
point.

So, regarding the Governor’s Day activities, then,
what did you think of the arrangements for the
obsetyance ?

Well, I thought for some time that the uni¬
versity ought to be moving away from the situa¬
tion in which the only official visit the governor
makes to the campus during the year is solely to
honor the military. I feel like the emphasis is
wrong, and it carries with it the implication that
it’s the most important thing we do. It is obvi¬
ously not that. There’s even some question of
whether we ought to be doing them, but we have
a statutory obligation as a land grant college.

Anyway, I felt for some time that it’s a mis¬
take to have Governor’s Day continued as it’s
been. It ought to be widened so that the governor
comes and honors various aspects of the univer¬
sity, and not just the military. But there are so
many things I am trying to bring about, and no¬
body else has. And I think the university has made
a mistake by not moving earlier to change the

ELMER R. RUSCO

359

whole proceeding, because in the new climate
there are a lot more people who share my view
that this is not appropriate, or have much more
extreme views. It’s also been quite clear that at¬
tendance has been very poor the last few years at
these things—that very small numbers of students
or faculty have any interest in the purely mili¬
tary. I haven’t been to any of them, because I don’t
approve.

So, I don’t know from firsthand experience,
but at least this is as it’s been reported. For sev¬
eral years attendance has been so sparse that it’s
really a little embarrassing [laughter] as the gov¬
ernor of the state and all these dignitaries come
out for something that obviously doesn’t mean
much to very many people on the campus, which
is another factor. Anyway, I think it was a mis¬
take not to have altered this format some time
ago and to include another thing. There was a
very minor change this time, in which the gover¬
nor attended a reception that morning which was
not solely military. I think we should have done
much more to alter that. And if we had, we would
probably have avoided this particular event, too.
But it wasn’t done, and nobody had brought it
up, really, as an issue, as far as I know, within the
university before, and that includes our failure, I
think.

I think back, and the one thing that disturbs
me about the event—the whole event since then—
is that this aspect of it has not been brought up.
Nobody has suggested that maybe there’s some¬
thing inappropriate about having Governor’s Day
as it has been held, because in the deployment. . .
well, various people have been very careful about
what they’ve said because of the dismissal
charges. In addition, many people felt—and I have
felt—the environment is such that.... So many
people in the community are so upset that they’d
do more upsetting at this point if you suggested
that there were more basic issues than they’ve
even thought of. But I think we made a mistake
by just letting each Governor’s Day be contin¬
ued as it has been in the past. Although, again,
the pretty accidental timing was also important.
If it had occurred the week before or even oc¬
curred two or three weeks after the Cambodian

decision, there would probably have been no
problem.

What was your reaction to the demonstration?

Well, two reactions. Again, I didn’t go, and I
only got some accounts, but I got some accounts
right away from some graduate students in our
department who’d been there. I don’t think I know
a lot of students who were involved in any of the
heckling (as I call it). At any rate, several had
been there, and I got some accounts from them.

My first reaction was that it was, basically, a
little amusing that, as I understood it, they had
been rude and had heckled and had mocked the
ROTC people, but hadn’t prevented anything
from being earned out. I thought, “Well, this is
an interesting example of the kind of climate
we’re in.” Then, I found out that there was a brief
confrontation involving the cars, which were de¬
layed for awhile (a few people seemed intent on
keeping the cars from moving). I found out that
there had been several points at which there might
have been some violence, or might have been
some attempt to keep the whole thing from being
carried out. And I was very happy that we haven’t
had anything like that happen.

In the afternoon on Tuesday at three-thirty,
there was a meeting in the Center. To students it
was a faculty meeting to talk about revitalizing
the Northern Nevada Peace Center. Jim Hulse, I
guess, was the one who called it and was more or
less presiding. He began the meeting by saying
that because people had not been organized and
had not anticipated what might happen, that we
had narrowly escaped a really bad situation that
day. Given his interpretation (which was si mi lar
to the one I’ve just given you), with the verse in
point that some very serious things might have
happened, and that we just barely escaped hav¬
ing them happen, he confirmed my feeling that
we had really been quite lucky in the whole thing.

And I’m starting from the assumption that
you’ve got the hundreds of students and many
faculty people very upset about the war, and
they’re unhappy about having the governor there
just for the military. Stalling with these assurnp-

360

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

tions, I think we were relatively lucky that no vio¬
lence occurred, and there was no attempt to pre¬
vent the ceremonies from being carried out. As
far as I know, they were carried through. I haven’t
got a full account of it. As far as I know, there
had been invasion of a military drill, so they had
to do in an unfriendly environment.

I felt, when it ended up today, that the feel¬
ing was: we’ve really been very lucky that we
have escaped something more serious.

You didn’t feel it was necessary to participate
yourself in any of the demonstrations then ?

No. Personally, I don’t feel comfortable in
such situations, so I avoid them as much as pos¬
sible, regardless of whether I approve of the ob¬
jectives or not. If I had known they were going to
go to the stadium, I would have disapproved of
that, because I think that it’s not desirable to try
to interfere with somebody else’s activities.

What was scheduled, as I understood it, was
the same thing that happened last year, which I
wholly approve of—while again I didn’t partici¬
pate last year—and that was the holding of the
peace rally in the bowl. Partly, I was busy, too;
that time of year is a busy one. But partly I don’t
like to participate in most things like that unless I
think that they’re really important, and I have a
duty of some kind. Partly the particular events
as occurred, I would not have wanted to partici¬
pate in myself, at all, because I don’t think that is
appropriate, not that I don’t think it’s serious; but
I don’t think it’s appropriate. I didn’t go then, you
know, for a combination of reasons.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration and the observance of
Governor's Day?

Effective? You mean, was it effective in cre¬
ating a crisis for the university? [laughter] I was
going to say it was the combination of the point
at which . . . between the threat of the thing, in
that the motorcade would be halted and, of course,
not allowed to start and the heckling, then, that
went on in the stadium itself. I don’t think that it

was effective in any way from the viewpoint of
the peace movement of the Nevada orientation. I
don’t think it had any effect or any positive ef¬
fects in that direction at all. I assume those other
events, obviously, were what really upset people
in the community.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various factions involved then—the ROTC,
the demonstrators, the university administra¬
tion—to the conflict that developed?

Well, I think the ideal reaction was the one
that generally occurred on campus. Two things.
Some realization that some of the events had not
been desirable, that they shouldn’t be encouraged,
and that they it should be realized that they were
undesirable. But mostly, the realization that it was
necessary to try to get people in communication
with each other and discussing these kinds of is¬
sues (that is, the wider issues of the war and also
the issues of how the universities own the activi¬
ties which would be connected with it).

I’ve forgotten what some of the Miller state¬
ments were, but Miller’s statements at the
Governor’s Day ceremonies, if I got them cor¬
rectly, were quite appropriate, I thought, and they
represented a good response to the situation.
Then, later in the week, I think that a good deal
of communication occurred on the campus
through various ways.

Well, the Tuesday afternoon meeting I went
to was the one where it was decided to hold a
memorial rally on the Friday for the Kent State
students and to ask the president to endorse this
and cancel classes for it. It was decided to hold
the rally anyway, if he didn’t endorse it, and to
set up a committee to go talk to the president about
this and plan, also, another committee, I think.
Possibly the same people must have got to go to
plan the events. So that I regal'd as a positive re¬
sponse to the situation.

There were a number of meetings. I know
there were two on Wednesday, neither of which I
went to. At one, basically a student meeting, what
I heard was that they had been really upset, and
there was some fairly wild talk that had come

ELMER R. RUSCO

361

out—not endorsing any extreme kind of behav¬
ior. While there was a good deal of hot rhetoric,
nothing happened apparently, and they did not
actually come to any negative conclusions. Then,
as I understand it, there was a student senate
meeting Wednesday evening, at which there were
not just the peace-oriented people, but also the
opponents present, at which apparently a good
deal of communication took place.

On Thursday afternoon there was a meeting
in the union at which a tremendous amount of
communication occurred, although it was com¬
plicated by the existence of the outsiders. There
were some people— I’m not sure whether they
were from out of Reno, but they weren’t stu¬
dents—who were there and wanting to do more
radical things, but were pretty much ignored.
Thursday afternoon, for all afternoon, people
drifted in and out, but with a substantial number
of people in the university—mainly students, but
also the faculty and staff people—and they were
generally talking about all the issues and getting
some communication going. I thought this was a
very beneficial kind of thing.

Apparently, it happened in small groups
around the campus also, as well. I kept hearing
about various groups that had sort of spontane¬
ously formed in which—sometimes with some
heat, but nevertheless—people had managed to
communicate with each other about what they
were concerned about. And I thought that was a
very desirable thing. It seemed to me that at the
end of the week a great deal of communication
had occurred on the campus, and a great deal of
releasing of tensions in a desirable, positive way
had occurred on the campus. So, I thought that’s
what should have happened and pretty much what
did happen on the campus itself.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the bombing?

Well, again, my feeling is that we were es¬
sentially lucky that nothing really serious had
happened. The ROTC bombing occurred first on
Thursday morning, and the reports that I’ve had
on it from the beginning were confirmed later,

and this was that no real damage had been done.
Then, at some point not long after that, some stu¬
dent government group—I think it was the finance
control board—said that they would pay for the
damage. So, the university isn’t out anything, ac¬
tually. No records were destroyed, nobody was
hurt. No problem, really—it wasn’t desirable,
obviously.

I felt that it wasn’t really a serious kind of
thing, and we had, again, gotten off relatively
lightly, because around the country in the last few
years a number of ROTC buildings had been
burned and some of them completely destroyed.
And the sentiments which produced this are not
absent on this campus, where earlier during the
week people had talked.. . I didn’t hear anybody
advocating burning the ROTC building, but
people had talked about the serious possibility
that this would happen. It did not surprise me that
somebody tried. And I was, again, happy really
that it hadn’t succeeded, and nothing really seri¬
ous had happened as a result.

Then, it was next Tuesday—I think, yes,
Tuesday morning early—that somebody threw a
bomb at the Hobbit Hole. And again, my reac¬
tion was that we were lucky nothing really hap¬
pened. Now, that could have been far more seri¬
ous, because normally there were people asleep
in that building at that time of the morning. Al¬
though later, when I thought about it, I realized
that on the campus towards the close of the se¬
mester the chance that everybody around would
be asleep was pretty slim, [laughter] because there
were evidently all sorts of people who reported it
immediately, all sorts of other people wandering
around it. There’s not too many places where lots
of people are wide awake at 3:00 in the morning,
but on campus, especially at the close of the se¬
mester, this happened.

Again, nobody was hurt. The damage to the
Hobbit Hole was not great. They burned out a
window, and they charred their porch. In this case
it’s more of a property loss than the others, be¬
cause it’s more revenge, and also because there
wasn’t any institutional choice to pay for it re¬
ally. People who own the house have to pay for it
themselves. But again, I thought we were lucky

362

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

that nothing enormous had happened and, espe¬
cially, that nobody had been hurt. There was even
an element of humor. The only thing that was
entirely destroyed in the bombing was an Ameri¬
can flag. Given the probable viewpoint to the
people who threw the bomb, I think that’s funny.
That really is.

The other thing about both of those is that
we don’t know who did them. I thought that the
ROTC fire bombing could possibly have been
from an off-campus source, because this was the
day that this group of people appeared trying,
obviously, to stir up something more extreme. I
don’t know whether it came from California
schools that have been closed down by Reagan
that gave these people chances to move around
the country, or whether they were locals. One of
these people said that he had been a student at
this university, and he was a native. The other
people, I don’t think, said. It’s quite possible they
were from out of town altogether. But anyway, I
thought it was not at all improbable that some of
these people had actually done the fire bombing,
rather than some of our own students. There are
radical groups around the country, and I don’t
think we have any representatives of it locally.
But there obviously is a radical group which feels
that we’re on the verge of revolution, that they
can provoke the establishment sufficiently, and
that they can radicalize, especially, the univer¬
sity sufficiently that you have a chance for revo¬
lution. I don’t think that this is at all realistic, but
there are these kinds of people.

Consequently, there are people who arc very
happy if violence occurs, especially if it’s going
to be tied to their political objective. I think it’s
not at all out of the question that some of these
people were the ones who threw the fire bomb.
So, if that’s the case, again, the fact that it did not
produce more radical behavior on the campus,
and that it did not do any real damage, we should
be very grateful from that perspective. So in gen¬
eral, I mean, I can close with that. Obviously, it
was bad. Nobody approves of people destroying
property for political objectives, you know—most
people don’t. I don’t. But, again, I thought we

were quite lucky in that nothing really serious
happened to the extent of property damage—or
the fact it did not extend the damage to people at
all—and the fact that the reaction on the campus
had been not to get things out of control at all.

In fact, the Tuesday bombing probably did
cool things down on campus, because they had a
meeting scheduled Tuesday. I guess it was stu¬
dents that called the meeting Tuesday night, at
which Adamian and Maher were scheduled to
speak, which I thought was a mistake. They
should not be saying things at this stage. It was
canceled, and I understand partly because the
bombing was interpreted as a bombing by ROTC
or pro-ROTC students. Again, we don’t know,
but this is the way it was interpreted. They felt
that tempers were high enough over this that it
was just simply was not wise to go on talking
about the issues in this kind of meeting, and so
they called it off. So, I think that meeting had the
effect of tuning it down. But at any rate, again, I
felt the university has really gotten off fairly well
in this whole thing.

What category of participant — students, faculty,
or outsiders—do you feel was most effective in
fomenting the violence that erupted?

Well, I'd say I don’t know. In the first place,
I’m really sure from everything I know that there
was no group— student, faculty, or otherwise—
on this campus agitating or planning any kind of
violence, either the kind that occurred or other¬
wise. I’m pretty sure that both bombings were
the work of individuals, or two or three people,
who got really excited and carried through these
things they did. They were not connected to any
movement of any sort on the campus, I'm still
quite sure—I don’t know, but that’s my reaction.
Whoever the individuals were, I don’t think that
they were acting for groups. It may turn out dif¬
ferent, but I don’t think so. I think it’s quite pos¬
sible the first bombing was done by somebody
from off the campus. Again, we don’t know, but
it’s the combination, the timing of the thing that
suggests to me that it quite possibly was.

ELMER R. RUSCO

363

Just how important do you think the outsiders
were, then? You kind of mentioned it.

Well, if an outsider did the bombing, that was
quite important in terms of the community reac¬
tion on the campus. It was Thursday afternoon
after the bombing that the discussion really took
place in which these outsiders were not listened
to, and there was a lot of people questioning their
right to be there at all. No real attempt was made
to remove them, and obviously, the general feel¬
ing was that they were there, and you ought to
talk with them. But they didn’t succeed at all in
leading the affection of the campus in the direc¬
tion of more extreme kinds of things, so that they
didn’t really have any significant impact.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preven ting more violence, of cooling off the situ¬
ation that developed from the bombings? I think
you kind of answered this.

Well, there were several kinds. First, the stu¬
dents who are leaders of the student peace move¬
ment, as far as I know, are mostly locals. Some
of them I know for sure, and I don’t know if there
are many of them. Most of the others I know have
been here for some time, and I think this has some
heal ing on the question. They are not all state
students or leaders, by and large.

But also, these people are very able people
whose motivations. I’m sure, are primarily ideal¬
istic. They are not the kind who have reached the
point that they feel revolution is desirable and is
going to come, or at all. Some of them feel very
strongly about some of these issues, but they don’t
have a really radical political orientation. I think
this helped a great deal; that is, that there was no
significant group on the campus at this time.

In addition, there were a number of faculty
members who realized the danger, and I men¬
tioned Jim Hulse said this on Tuesday. They did
as much as they could to keep communication
open. For example, I’m a member of the faculty
senate, and on Thursday, I was called by Gary
Peltier’s office and told to go to this meeting in

the afternoon. And I was asked to go over if pos¬
sible and try to keep communication going, and
not let it get to the point where really serious kinds
of things might occur. I didn’t talk to Gary di¬
rectly, but he was reporting on a meeting that
President Miller had had with the deans Thurs¬
day morning, at which their conclusion had been
faculty and staff ought to be participating in these
kinds of meetings and ought to be trying to keep
them constructive—not in any kind of repressive
role, but trying to keep track of what is going on
and keep them going in constructive directions.
So, there was a deliberate attempt from Miller on
down—through a number of faculty people any¬
way—to try to keep things from getting to an
extreme point.

I think it is a very desirable kind of response
from the administration and from the faculty. If
you combine the fact that you’ve got this with
the fact that you’ve got good student leadership
who are interested genuinely in getting some com¬
munication going (and then in really doing some¬
thing about the war), you get this kind of combi¬
nation—and we had the results we had.

And I suspect also simply the size of the in¬
stitution still had something to do with it. The
student factions, the whole cowboy faction, didn’t
feel a complete gap between themselves and the
peace people. Even though they got kind of mad
at each other at various points, these two groups
were able eventually to reach quite a bit of com¬
munication, and at least realize that they were all
decent people who were agreed on some things,
at least, even though they disagreed on some other
things. I think partly this may be the size of the
institution that permits this. With some larger in¬
stitutions you probably have enormous gaps be¬
tween sections of the student body, and they don’t
recognize each other as being in the same uni¬
verse. And we don’t think we quite have that yet.
It may partly be size.

Well, that’s kind of rambling, but I think there
are several factors that have to be included, and
for the record I think this might be important to
include. The administration took what I thought
was a positive attitude toward the whole thing.

364

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Fortunately, no one in the administration took the
point of view that all these things were bad and
had to be suppressed. If they had, we’d have had
some real violence, because the number of people
involved and the depth of their concerns—they’re
too great to be turned off by orders from any¬
body. And nobody took that view, fortunately.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s so-called image with outsiders?

Well, in this state, obviously, they may have
stirred up a great deal of hostility now. Flow much
of this hostility was present already for various
reasons and simply focused on these events, I’m
not sure. With this sort of thing, you never really
know, I guess. But at any rate, the response in the
community, as far as I can perceive it, has been
far more extreme than I expected—so extreme
that it constitutes a really great danger to the uni¬
versity.

I think we’re in a situation where the poten¬
tialities are far more serious than anything that’s
happened since the Stout affair of the 1950s.
There’s a potentiality for real damage. The uni¬
versity is in a very precarious situation because
of the outside reaction. We’ve had not just people,
but important political leaders, threatening to
impose loyalty oaths on students and cut off funds
for the university if anything happens, at any ex¬
pression of dissent in any direction occurs, and
all sorts of extreme things. You’ve had people
defending the killing of students who were throw¬
ing rocks—and this sort of thing—out in the com¬
munity. The reaction has been so strong that it’s
obviously quite unclear at this point just what’s
going to happen, but we’re in a very dangerous
situation, I think, because of that. Obviously, I
think this is a quite irrational reaction in terms of
what happened. I think the perception within the
university, which is pretty widespread (and which
is close to mine), is just simply not shared very
widely in the community, apparently, and this is
the problem, [laughter]

What function does the university have in trying
to focus public opinion?

Well, I’m not particularly sure any more, in
general.

We have this hostility on the one hand. Is there
some way of focusing public opinion on other
things in the university?

Well, I doubt if there’s much we can do in
that mind at this point, but I think the university
should, and there have been a number of attempts
to do this—libraries, people. I think the univer¬
sity should be attempting to try to get the com¬
munity to see two things that would be quite im¬
portant. One is that the . . . oh, how do I put this?

The university has its own procedures and
standards, which are not solely determined lo¬
cally, but on national standards of the profession.
They’re formulated partly in explicit terms and
partly not. Insofar as they’re formulated in ex¬
plicit terms, they’re usually in the statements by
the AAUP, the most important of which are en¬
dorsed also by a number of other institutions that
are representing various statements of higher edu¬
cation. Partly, we have to tty to get over to the
community that this particular community does
not have the right to impose standards on the uni¬
versity which are at variance with those of the
national organizations, and then the national pro¬
fession. And that if it attempts to do so, it’s going
to destroy the university or seriously damage it.

This is the AAUP chapter who made that
press release, which was in last night’s [Reno
Evening ] Gazette and this morning’s [Nevada
State] Journal , pointing out some of these things,
and that was in the letter where Frankie Sue Del
Papa last week on TV made an appeal (I didn’t
see this, but heard about it), including in part this
kind of orientation: asking people to let the
university’s internal procedures operate. I think
we have to make more attempts to do that and to
tty to get across to the community that however
deeply it feels about things, there are certain of
the standards involved that are not up to them to
decide.

Unfortunately, some of the comments that
have been made by people in the community—
I’m sure they don’t come from a general political

ELMER R. RUSCO

365

ideology or perspective of this sort—but they
essentially hold a totalitarian view of what the
university is: the university is an instrument that
the community uses to indoctrinate its young
people in the dominant values. And it simply is
not what the university is. I think we have to tty
to be allowed to communicate this sort of thing
to a community which apparently doesn’t have
much comprehension of this.

Our particular' problem at the moment is that
the regents are acting like the outside commu¬
nity primarily, and not like part of the university.
A big problem was communication over the
weekend, since the latest thing this weekend was
Procter Hug. Without taking into consideration
what President Miller or anybody else within the
university system said, except apparently Chan¬
cellor Humphrey, Proctor Hug came up with a
list of rules that everybody was going to have to
observe on pain of expulsion, and he intends to
ask the regents to adopt these at this June meet¬
ing.

This would be very bad in terms of relation¬
ships within the university. Nobody would ap¬
prove of this, and there are people already talk¬
ing about trying to go to court and get real block¬
age of this, which I doubt is possible. This sort of
reaction is occurring at a university. We’re in se¬
rious trouble if the regents can’t be made to see
that the institution’s rules can’t be ignored, and
procedures for involving and making decisions
with faculty and students can’t be ignored as well,
even by the regents. The other thing is, of course,
the problem of the Adamian and Maher case. Do
you want me to talk about that specifically later?

There’s a question about academic freedom next,
whether you feel that academic freedom is in¬
volved in participation in demonstrations.

Well, obviously, potentially the Adamian-
Maher case is one of the things that makes it very
serious. I don’t know why these particular people
were picked out and identified publicly—attacked
publicly—during that week. I don’t know that
they even played any particularly important role
in the whole thing, and I’m not even sure what

role they played. But, at any rate, they were
singled out with many other charges, with de¬
mands on the university that they be fired. The
regents on Saturday, I guess (yes, end of that
week), singled them out by name in a public meet¬
ing and then in a private meeting about dismissal
charges against them. Now, the regents, at least,
did not just try to fire them on the spot and did
refer the matter back to the university for appro¬
priate internal handling.

There are two dangers with this, I think.
One is that if the regents really intend to fire these
people, regardless of what goes on within the
university, we will certainly end up on the AAUP
censored list. I’m quite sure of this, because the
AAUP’s rules governing these matters make it
quite clear that in a dismissal proceeding what
counts is a total performance of the person and
not isolated events. And then, the charges made
are by regard to those isolated events.

The other danger is that our procedures for
dealing with this are not precisely those estab¬
lished by the profession. This is partly because
the AAUP national statements on this were
adopted just after the particular rules that we fol¬
low were adopted. At any rate, the president made
a mistake, I think, in not checking with the AAUP
in the regional office or the national office about
procedures before he responded to the regents.
The regents, in effect, told him he had to bring
dismissal proceedings, so he had no choice. But
he did have a choice in how he went about it, and
he didn’t check. It might not just be the regents
that get into some problem, even though I’m quite
sure Miller intends to follow all the proper pro¬
cedures and certainly is in terms of ones he’s us¬
ing.

The outside pressures on the regents to fire
people for actions are essentially because of the
political context of the actions and not really the
actions themselves. I don’t know exactly what
role they played in the events of Governor’s Day,
or what Maher said to his class, but it’s quite clear
that they didn’t do anything, in whatever role they
played, that would be regarded as seriously as it
is, except for its connection with the peace move¬
ment.

366

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Mackay Day has calmed down in several
years. We still have students being thrown in the
lake, which is closer to violence than anything
that occurred on Governor’s Day. Then we had
one so-called hippie priest here about two years
ago, Charlie Brown, and there were violent threats
against him, that he had to be gotten off the cam¬
pus. This didn’t produce any response in the com¬
munity of this sort. And we had lots of other
things.

Well, during the same week, for example,
there was the same kind of heckling of the peace
meeting, because they saw what had occurred at
the Governor’s Day ceremony, but this didn’t
bother anybody at all.

On Thursday night when there was a candle¬
light vigil, while there was supposed to be silence,
there were several rude students up on the walk.
I did attend that one, and I was there. There on
the walk behind me these two were talking loudly
and laughing and obviously trying to be rude, in
the same way that the peace students had been at
Governor’s Day. Now, I assume they were doing
the same thing, but maybe it was something else.

On Friday at the Kent State memorial there
was a radio turned up very high with some
squawking during the ceremonies, and I’m sure
that this was heckling of some sort. It could be
that it was just accidental—a police radio, which
for some reason had to be on and very loud. But
I don’t know any good reason why it was. I don’t
know what it was, but I assume it was some hon¬
est heckling.

Well, obviously, these kinds of things aren’t
even in the category with the things these people
were threatened with—and are now losing their
jobs over—but they don’t bother people because
they’re from a different political orientation. That
is one of the reasons why academic freedom is in
danger in this kind of situation, because it is not
just the conduct; it is the fact that the conduct is
oriented in a way that is opposed by the domi¬
nant forces in this community. But it’s really the
philosophy. All the unhappiness has been in simi¬
lar things, which have no political connotation,
or have an opposite political connotation, and

don’t produce this response in the community.
And I assume that most people who respond in
this way are not too naive to see it, if this is the
case, but I’m sure it is. I’m sure that nationally
the academic profession is not going to be im¬
pressed by the local myopia in this matter at all.

So we run the danger, I think, quite clear dan¬
ger of losing our standing in the profession, if
these people are fired under any procedures. Well,
I think the regents are going to let the procedures
in the university be carried out in this particular
case—then what they do when these operate, I
don’t know.

There’s also another possibility. And there
are some hints that possibly Adamian and Maher
may not ask for a heal ing, which I can’t under¬
stand why they wouldn’t, but they haven’t yet.
There’s some reason I assume that maybe they’re
not going to, which would result in their auto¬
matic dismissal, and I don’t know what would
happen from that point on. It’s possible that ev¬
erything would be very different, because they
may be following some strategy that does not in¬
volve using these processes. But, assuming that
they do appeal the dismissal charges, and that the
university procedure is gone through, I think
we’re in those dangers, unless the regents will
ignore whatever is done in the university.

How do you think the students and faculty can be
effective politically, or should they attempt to in¬
fluence governmental policy?

Now, well, this gets back to this larger ques¬
tion I mentioned earlier. First of all, the univer¬
sity is deeply involved in public-policy making
and in decision making, and it affects the whole
community—whether it’s the government or
not—and it has been for a long time. Obviously,
for example, ROTC is not for a normal academic
puipose, but for carrying out a governmental pur¬
pose. And obviously the whole agricultural
school, the extension; obviously the business
school, which is partly or largely oriented toward
serving business; obviously the mining school
does this, and all sorts of particular' sections of

ELMER R. RUSCO

367

the university—research and service—are in
keeping and in serving interests, viewpoints, and
values in the community already.

So, it’s possible to take the point of view that
the university could be solely concerned with
ideas and not with the implementation of these
ideas at all, but if so, that would call for a radical
restructuring of the university—any university, I
think—but it’s certainly in a land grant univer¬
sity and state university. And I don’t take that
point of view. I can see that the university ought
to be involved with attempting to improve things
in the community. The critical point is whether
this is done under subordination to the commu¬
nity, in which the community is simply an instru¬
ment of other groups in the community or the
dominant forces, whatever they may be in the
moment—or whether this is done according to
the standards of the university. I think, obviously,
it’s the latter case, because if you don’t have any¬
thing that’ll be called a free university any more,
you have a totalitarian institution.

If it’s not incompatible with any of its other
activities to do it any other way, the university
must be free to determine its own values, stan¬
dards, and what kinds of impacts it wants to have
on the community. Now, the first danger of that,
of course, is that if it goes too far, the teaching
function of the university, the research functions,
or fundamental function of serving truth may get
shunted aside. The impact on the university be¬
comes a situation where faculty aren’t out there
to teach classes, because they’re all consulting
and winning things in the community. We have
very little of that around here that I can see, but
that is obviously one danger. Closing down the
university for whatever political goal, of course,
is, I think, undesirable.

You also run the danger that universities value
the standards that are for most of the people within
the institution. Obviously, the institution itself
should not attempt to impose any single standard,
and doesn’t. But the predominant standard of any
university may be so strongly at variance with a
community, that actually you produce negative
results. That may be where we are—a long way

around, but that may be where we are with re¬
gal'd to peace and Nevada today.

I mean, I don’t know what the predominant
sentiment in the university is, but certainly in a
large segment of the student body, the leaders of
the student body, the most active student groups,
and in a considerable segment of the faculty (I
don’t whether it is the largest segment or not, but
they’re also concerned about these things) you
have a group of people who would like to have
an impact on the community in the direction of
ending the war. The problem may be that this is
sufficiently unpopular in the community. They
are simply producers; they uphold the authority
for the university and don’t accomplish anything
towards achieving the objective.

Now, I think in this connection about the only
thing you can do is to, well, first decide how im¬
portant the issue is—and that’s where the prob¬
lem comes up, of course. If people have the feel¬
ing that the war is going to destroy everything
somehow, including the universities, then it’s
more important than the day-to-day activities in
the university, if you welcome people. So you
have to make some kind of judgment yourself
about how important any particular issue, speech,
or otherwise in the community is in relationship
to your other things. But, in addition it seems to
me that about all you can do in this kind of situa¬
tion is try to act as responsibly and intelligently
as possible to try to convince people of your point
of view.

I even noticed that nationally this has oc¬
curred with some of the students who, for what¬
ever reason (and I haven’t been able to figure this
out entirely), have specialized in long hair and
beards and so forth and all that, in terms of dress
in the last few years. Many of these people have
started getting haircuts and dressing in orthodox
fashion in order to increase their possibility of
really communicating to people about the things
that are really important to them, and I think this
is all very good.

If it’s earned to the point that people don’t
feel they can do anything that they want if it’s
not conforming, that’s bad. In this particular situ-

368

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

ation, it seems to me, obviously, if you want to
be effective, one way not to do it is approach
people on the basis of antagonism, just because
you can be who you are.

I’ve personally followed this theory for years.
I almost always wear suits. I usually wear suits
and ties, and I’ve worn my hair in a crew cut for
many years, mainly because it’s inconspicuous
and nobody’s going to get. . . well, probably be¬
cause it’s easier. If you wear a uniform, you don’t
have to think about what you put on, and you
don’t have to comb hair this way. I do this largely
because nobody ever gets upset at me because of
the way I look, and, consequently, they will lis¬
ten to what I have to say far more easily than if I
looked eccentric. Of course, now around the uni¬
versity I look a little eccentric with short hair,
[laughter] but outside in the community I still am
inconspicuous. Actually, I think in general, that
anybody who wants to try to influence what is
going on for good and significant reasons ought
to be sensible enough to conduct himself in such
a way that he has a maximum chance of having
that kind of impact. I think, in general, that that
applies to this situation.

Now, whether in this particular community
the peace movement, no matter how it behaves,
is going to have much impact, I don’t know. Ac¬
tivity may stir up more hostility for the univer¬
sity. If it does, then people have to balance these
kinds of things off and decide how important the
various things are to them.

So, that led into the next question, which is, where
is the peace movement headed here ?

Well, I assume, from what I know, that it’s
doing some of the things that it’s doing nation¬
ally—that is, concentrating on practical politics,
and really having an impact on the elections. A
problem with that is that the only . . . well, now
there are two possibilities for people. One is a
peace orientation to be really effective in elec¬
tions and not very much of a possibility, and that
is supporting an opponent to Walter Baring in the
Democratic Primary, [laughter] There is no pos¬

sibility of electing a Republican to Congress, at
all. And I don’t think there’s any possibility of
nominating anybody else in the Democratic Pri¬
mary. But there is another candidate this year,
and he’s obviously much more in tune with the
peace people than anybody else. So, some stu¬
dents are, in fact, supporting Otto Ravenholt. 1

Then, there’s a more serious thing, and that
is Senator Cannon. Although he was a hawk for
many years, he has become much more dovish
and has indicated he will vote for the Cambodian
resolution in the Senate, for example. He is run¬
ning for re-election against someone who I think
is a formidable opponent. I think the peace move¬
ment evidently is going to support him and
should—because there’s a practical thing they can
do in keeping somebody in the Senate who is
much more attuned to their point of view than
Mr. Raggio. Again, the problem is that it would
have to be done carefully, or Cannon would prob¬
ably be hurt by being identified as being supported
by hippies, [laughter]

While I’m thinking that this sort of practical
activity is going on in Nevada, there’s really only
one race where it could be important. I don’t think
that there’s any real prospect in changing any¬
thing in this town. I think the Senate race is com¬
petitive this year and could have some impact,
and I think the students are working in that direc¬
tion.

Do you have any other comments you ’d like to
make?

There is another element that maybe I could
say about this. The problems arising out of this
particular incident may have another potential for
really serious effects on the university. And I don’t
know anything directly about this—I’m just
speculating. They could lead to the resignation
of President Miller if things get bad enough. If
Miller feels that his admonitions or his viewpoints
about how to deal with these things are being to¬
tally ignored by the regents and the whole thing,
and the regents are doing things wrong, he could
well decide that there are a lot more desirable

ELMER R. RUSCO

369

things for him to be doing personally. That would
be a catastrophe if that happened. I’ve not talked
with him, and I’ve not heard anything clear that
would indicate that is an immediate danger, but I
think it’s a general danger in the situation.

Well, also, one of the things that we have to
try to communicate to the community (and, un¬
fortunately, the regents are included in this, too, I
think) is the intelligent response to situations of
tension and conflict and frustration. I’m afraid
that a good bit of the community thinks that if
there is student unrest that does occasionally lead
to attempted bombing and disruption—no mat¬
ter how serious the events—that the appropriate
response to this is just simply to get tough. And I
think this is a catastrophically wrong interpreta¬
tion of the situation.

I think that on Governor’s Day if the presi¬
dent, or anyone else, had attempted to arrest the
people involved, we’d have had real violence and
something much worse than happened before. I
think what you’ve got here is a situation where a
lot of people are very upset and have to have some
way of expressing it. If you’re lucky, you can get
them to express it in positive ways, but you can’t
keep them from expressing it. All you can do is
change the way in which they express it from a
positive to a negative form. In addition, the
community’s viewpoint simply creates frustration
and unrest simply by the fact that it’s a commu¬
nity viewpoint.

Relationships the regents may have may put
them in a category similar to that of an employer,
but the university, or students or faculty alike,
are not employees of anybody, and they are not
inmates of any kind. If they are faced with a re¬
pressive attitude from the outside or from the re¬
gents, the reaction is going to be a lot of hostility
based simply on the way that they have been
treated. And I should think by now that it would
have occurred to most people that this viewpoint
that seems to prevail in the university—appar¬
ently President Miller’s viewpoint—is correct,
because it should have occurred to people.

For example, in California, Governor Reagan
campaigned on the “get tough” policy regarding

universities four years ago, and things have got¬
ten worse—and they have real violence now.
They do have people killed on campuses in Cali¬
fornia, and they do have buildings burned down
and battles between the police and students. So
it’s much worse than it ever was prior to 1966.
Obviously, basically what has happened is the war
has continued and gotten to be a more serious
issue, but also the repressive atmosphere of
Reagan has stirred things up. When he makes
comments like, “We’re going to have a blood
bath—let’s get it over with,” he just increases the
chances of a blood bath beyond any question, I
think. 2

I think the university has somehow to try to
get across to community leaders that this is the
case: in the situation which might be some po¬
tential for more disorder, the worst thing you can
possibly do is to start cracking down as hard as
you can, and start issuing admonitions against any
form of dissent or any form of disruption. This is
going to increase the danger that this sort of thing
will occur. I think this is another place where
within the university there is a considerable agree¬
ment on this. I think among the people who are
influential there is general agreement on this,
probably, but outside I think there’s almost no
comprehension in this community of this point
of view.

I think that’s one of the real dangers in the
situation, and I can give you my judgment: I think
Miller has behaved very well in the situation, and
that many of the things he’s done have reduced
the magnitude of what has occurred to prevent
anything serious occurring. But I don’t think that’s
perceived that way out in the outside community.
I mean, many people were thinking of him as not
behaving in any strong way, which is just a total
misreading. If the community then insists on im¬
posing its conception of how to deal with these
things on people who know better, we’re in for
real trouble, too. Anybody who tried to prevent
all peace demonstrations on campus, for example,
would be getting violence automatically. I’m sure.

I think that’s a problem the university has.
And I don’t know just how you communicate with

370

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

the outside community with this sort of thing, but
I think it has to be done somehow. I suppose the
young people in the university have to start point¬
ing this out, too.

Notes

1. In the September 1, 1970 Democratic primary elec¬
tion for Representative in Congress, Otto Ravenholt
lost to Walter S. Baring, who won by over twice the
number of votes. Baring went on to defeat Republican
J. Robert Charles in the November 3, 1970 general
election.

2. As noted in an earlier interview, Reagan said, “If it
takes a bloodbath, let’s get it over with. No more ap¬
peasement.” His comment occurred during the ques¬
tion and answer session following a speech then Gov¬
ernor Reagan gave in Yosemite, California, on April
8, 1970.

Alan S. Ryall

May 27, 1970

Alan S. Ryall, Reno. Position is professor of
geophysics.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

[laughter] I imagine because Ken Carpenter
gave you my name.

I don’t think he did, as a matter of fact, [laugh¬
ter]

Didn’t he? Well, Ken and I were together
during the peace march. Or perhaps you’d have a
list of names of people who took paid in that.

No, there's just a list of names that have come
from various sources. What was your reaction to
Presiden t Nixon's Cambodia decision ?

Well, I’ve been opposed to the Indochina
adventure for a long time, and so I was opposed
to that. When he went into Cambodia, I had the
impression that perhaps he was convinced that
some action could be carried out in a matter of a
few days, which would prevent the North Viet¬

namese from resupplying troops in Vietnam and
give the president an excuse to withdraw com¬
pletely from Vietnam. That hasn’t turned out to
be the case.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

I think that’s difficult to say. I didn’t follow
the buildup of activities on this campus, and I’m
not sure about the sequence, the chronological
sequence of events. I think the Kent State kill¬
ings had had a great deal to do with the emotion
that had been generated here. But I’m not sure
whether plans were formulated for the Governor’s
Day demonstration before or after Kent State.
Kent State, I think, was Monday, wasn’t it, and
Governor’s Day was Tuesday?

Yes, Monday.

Certainly, the Kent State situation contrib¬
uted to the emotion-packed atmosphere.

Well, this leads us to the next question. What was
your reaction to even ts in other parts of the coun ¬
try, stemming from the Cambodia decision?

372

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Alan Ryall, 1965.

Well, again, in general, I’ve been opposed to
Vietnam. So I was in sympathy with the reaction
that was taking place across the country, and I
hoped that this would lead the president to per¬
haps recognize that there was a significant amount
of dissention in the country about the adminis¬
tration policy.

As far as the Kent State students being killed,
I think this is something that has happened be¬
fore in American history, in the union movement.
It was a case of overreaction. It was probably in¬
evitable, given the number of demonstrations that
were taking place and, you know, demonstrations
taking place in new places. It's something that
could possibly happen here, I think, if a situation
ever got out of hand. I wasn’t surprised that fi¬
nally something violent happened of that nature
in a place where police and National Guard arc
not really used to engaging in riot control activi¬
ties.

Now, regarding the Governor’s Day activities
here on campus, what did you think of the ar¬
rangements for the obsen’ances?

I wasn’t aware of the arrangements. I was
aware that there was going to be a demonstration
and of the time that the demonstration was sup¬
posed to take place. You’re talking about the dem¬
onstration, not about the ....

No. The obsen’ances, the Governor’s Day..

Oh, the Governor’s Day? I think on hindsight
I would agree that perhaps it was inappropriate
to have a formal military observance with classes
dismissed at that particular time. I think that prob¬
ably Governor’s Day should have been called off
at the last minute or postponed or held somewhere
else.

Then what was your reaction to the demonstra¬
tions?

Well, by that time I was suspicious that the
Cambodian misadventure was not going to pay
off. So I was in favor of the demonstration, of
any demonstration at that point, and took part in
part of that demonstration.

So you did feel it was necessary to participate in
some kind of. . . ?

I thought it was timely.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration, first, and then of the cer¬
emony?

That’s very difficult to say, and this is some¬
thing that we’ve all been discussing for weeks.
I'm sure the more conservative people on cam¬
pus and the conservative liberals (if you want to
call them that), objected to the sort of violent
activities that took place in the grandstand and
disruption of an official ceremony. Given the state
of affairs in Nevada—that is, the attitude of the

ALAN S. RYAT.I.

373

average voter and so on—one wonders if a peace¬
ful demonstration has any effect at all here. Cer¬
tainly it doesn’t have any effect as far as getting
national recognition or the other things that seem
to affect the stock market and the administration.

I didn’t stay around long enough to actually
witness what went on in the grandstand. I dropped
out of the march after the first time around the
track and then left. I stayed long enough to see
demonstrators go into the grandstands and sort
of stamp their feet and shout around for a while,
but I didn’t see the whole series of activities.

But it’s very difficult to make a judgment
about what’s proper and improper at a time when
I think the national government is not particu¬
larly responsive to a large segment of the popu¬
lation. This brings up the whole question of
whether a people is entitled to go beyond the
bounds of socially acceptable, even legally ac¬
ceptable means to make themselves heard at a
time of national emergency, or when a govern¬
ment is not responsive.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the ROTC, the demonstrators, and the univer¬
sity administration to what developed on
Governor !v Day?

The safe thing for the administration to have
done would have been to first call off Governor’s
Day, and second, not to allow the demonstration
to go into the stadium. Once it had gone that far,
though, it was a kind of an explosive situation,
and I think we’re fortunate that it only got as bad
as it did. It could have been worse. There were a
couple of times when the atmosphere was very
tense, and one could see that something, you
know, bad could happen just in a moment. One
thing I witnessed outside the student union, when
a student jumped up on a car and was dragged
off by a military officer. As far as the
nonparticipation of the university police and what
was apparently good discipline on the part of the
ROTC, I think the situation was handled well by
non-demonstrators. I’m not sure about the con¬
tribution or non-contribution of demonstrations
like that.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day: the firing of Hartman
Hall and the Hobbit Hole?

Well, there was a good deal of overreaction
on the part of individuals. I think immediately
after Governor’s Day, with the discussions and
threats and things that were going around cam¬
pus, there’s a tendency on the part of almost ev¬
erybody to cool it and tone down the demonstra¬
tions—to try to convert what was on the verge of
becoming violence to a kind of a “talk-a-thon”
that went on for several days. But apparently there
were some individuals (perhaps people from off-
campus, I don’t know) who felt that matters had
to be taken into their own hands.

Again, given the situation that arose here, I
think this is the kind of thing that can happen. If
anything, it was probably an object lesson to all
of the students on campus as to what can happen
when a situation like this takes place. It shouldn’t
have happened, but I’m not particularly disturbed,
since nobody was killed and damage was rather
minor. I think we came through the whole busi¬
ness with a minimum of damage to the univer¬
sity. And there are people downtown who would
not agree with that.

Now, what category of participant—people in
categories of student, faculty, and outsider—do
you feel was most effective in fomen ting the vio¬
lence that erupted?

Well, again, this is something that’s been dis¬
cussed for a long time, and there have been a
couple of individuals named as leading this whole
business. And, well, I suppose we can name
names here. Paul Adamian is the faculty member
who was given credit for a lot of it, and certainly
he stood out as a person who was participating in
the demonstration in a very energetic fashion. But
I think perhaps if Paul Adamian had not been here,
and if Maher had not been here, that somebody
else might have taken that role, and the demon¬
stration might have gone on.

It was a situation where people who really
were opposed to the war were confronting the

374

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

group observing Governor’s Day, a military ob¬
servance by those who were on the other side,
and this created a situation which sort of fomented
itself. I think what happened probably would have
happened, more or less, no matter who had been
there. There were some sort of cheerleaders whip¬
ping up the crowd. But if they hadn’t been
there ....

I don’t think it was instigated from outside.
It wasn’t planned from outside. I think the people
who took part in it were sincerely opposed to the
war, and it just became a situation that got out of
hand.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence or in cooling off the
situation that had developed?

I think it was a self-limiting process. I think
once it reached an explosive point and people
realized what could happen, it began to cool it¬
self off. But I think after Governor’s Day, par¬
ticipants in the peace demonstration and those
opposed to them, for the most part, were trying
to keep the situation in hand. Perhaps one might
also characterize that demonstration as a thing
that wasn’t very well planned. It’s something that
came up on the spur of the moment. The people
that I’ve talked to who participated in it don’t
seem to feel that there was much communication
between the demonstrators and the administra¬
tion, or between the planners of the demonstra¬
tion themselves, so that it was kind of a happen¬
ing.

The afternoon after Governor’s Day a num¬
ber of people got together and began planning
for the two or three demonstrations that occurred
on the following days. And there was a definite
attempt then to keep these demonstrations at a
very somber sort of cool level, to have them out¬
doors with plenty of room and so on, so if the
situation intensified at all, it would be intensify¬
ing from a rather low level and wouldn’t reach
the sort of critical mass that the Governor’s Day
demonstration appeared to.

So I think these were people who had not been
participating in anti-government demonstrations
for the last year or so, since the time that Nixon
announced that he was going to begin withdraw¬
ing from Vietnam. But with the Cambodian situ¬
ation, I think more people came back into this
protest movement, and these are the people who
began to take over the planning and toned it all
down.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s so-called image with outsiders?

Well, our image with the average worker or
voter in Nevada is poor at the present time, and I
think one could say that about a number of uni¬
versities around the country. But at the same time,
protest in the universities has created a chaotic
situation, which I believe has finally had its ef¬
fect in areas like the stock market and has finally
forced the administration to begin to listen to, I
think, a rather significant group of people in the
country. And given that, well, our image is suf¬
fering at the present time and that of other uni¬
versities is also suffering. Still, when it’s all done
with, if this contributes to a redirection of na¬
tional goals in new areas that are more appropri¬
ate at the present time, then one has to consider
all these effects, I think.

Well, what function should the university have in
trying to focus public opinion?

Well, obviously, I’m on the side of groups
like this, trying to make their dissent felt in areas
where this can do the most good for whatever
cause. In this case, perhaps events in Nevada have
received recognition in areas outside Reno. Pub¬
lic opinion has been focused on the university in
a negative way. The result of all of this activity
here has been negative in the sense that it’s con¬
tributed to a chaotic situation in the country. But,
again, I think perhaps the end result may be ben¬
eficial.

ALAN S. RYAT.I.

375

Do you feel that issues of academic freedom are
in involved in participating in demonstrations?

I feel that anyone in the country should have
the right to peaceably assemble in dissent. When
a demonstration is improperly planned—or
planned such that it gets out of control, people
are hurt, or property is damaged—and individu¬
als are named as having fomented this trouble,
the leaders of those demonstrations have to ex¬
pect to be treated as anyone is treated who breaks
the rules a society has set up. So as far as aca¬
demic freedom goes, I don’t believe that profes¬
sors and students should be completely free to
demonstrate and burn down buildings on univer¬
sity campuses and that sort of thing. I think there
should be strict rules regarding any kind of pro¬
test anywhere—which isn’t to say that I think
everybody should follow those rules exactly,
[laughter] But one has to take the consequences.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally? Do you think they should attempt to influ¬
ence governmental policy?

Yes. I think what has happened in recent
weeks has affected governmental thinking, at
least. And in general I believe students and fac¬
ulty should participate in the political process.
We appear to be sort of reaching the end, per¬
haps, of the violent days of college politics now.
Students from universities and colleges around
the country are cutting their hair and preparing
to go out and ring more bells and try to influence
the upcoming vote in a legitimate way, and I think
this is a good thing. I think the discussions which
took place on this campus as a result of the
Governor’s Day demonstration were invaluable,
actually. People began exchanging views here
who would not have thought of exchanging views
prior to that. Sometimes it takes a crisis to de¬
velop a meaningful dialog.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed now?

I’ve been trying to find out. [laughter] The
people I know are waiting for the semester to be
over—and probably to begin planning for the
elections and to get back into the legitimate pro¬
cess of the precincts and all the other things you
do.

Do you have any other comments you ’d like to
make about the whole situation?

No, not unless there’s something you can
think of.

Joseph Sellers

June 19, 1970

OK, now for the record if you’ll say your name
and your residence and your class and major.

I’m Joe Sellers. I’m a graduate student. My
residence, where I'm from?

Yes, yes. Hometown.

I’m from Bakersfield, California.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed for this?

I suppose because I was the president of
Sundowners.

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to go into Cambodia with troops?

Well, I’m completely behind the president,
if it will help our cause in the war, to go into
Cambodia—it seems to be where a lot of supply
routes are, in Cambodia. And I feel that it was
justified to go into Cambodia if it would help our

cause and end the war, because I don’t see why
they should just completely stay out of a place
where the supplies are coming from. Why just
let them come right into Laos and Vietnam un¬
touched? They should try to win the war and in
the best way they know how, and I think that by
doing this, it was justified.

In what way do you think the Cambodian deci¬
sion was related to what happened next on our
campus?

Well, I feel that it was just another excuse to
cause dissension on the campus. I think that the
Kent State thing is similar. It’s just another ex¬
cuse for them to stir up trouble on this campus.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodian decision?

Could you repeat that? [laughter]

How did you feel about events in other parts of
this country that were related to the Cambodia
decision—the other demonstrations, the Kent
State affair, and things like that?

378

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, I mean, I’m completely against this type
of thing. I don’t think they should allow it on the
campuses. I think that the administration doesn’t
have any backbone to allow this type of thing to
go on. And I think that the schools are supposed
to be a learning situation, and these type of dis¬
ruptions—they’ve been closing down campuses
all over the country.

If they close down this campus due to this
type of violence ... I know that if classes were
cut off and it interfered ... if you worked all se¬
mester toward earning a degree or four years, I
mean—I don’t go for it at all. I don’t think it would
happen here, because we wouldn’t let it happen.
I think they should do something about it, the
National Guard or whatever, and do whatever it
takes to make these people listen.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities:
what did you think of the arrangements for ob¬
serving the Governor’s Day ceremony—the ar¬
rangements made for the ceremonial observance
of Governor’s Day?

You mean the official Governor’s Day? Well,
they’ve been doing the same thing for as long as
I’ve been here. I mean, they bring the governor
in, they recognize the ROTC people, and so on
and so forth. It seemed in order to me as far as
that goes, but there were other problems, too.
[laughter]

What did you think of the demonstration? What
was your reaction to the demonstration?

I just wish I’d have been there. I wasn’t here;
I was umpiring a university baseball game that
day, [laughter] and I just wish there had been a
few more people around such as the Sundowners
and the aggie people over there, because I don’t
think it . . . well, there might have been some vio¬
lence, but I don’t think they would have disgraced
the governor and the president of the university
and gotten away with it as they did. They walked
right through the Governor’s Day ceremony at

Mackay Stadium, and they catcalled everybody.
And I think that if we’d have been around, they’d
have thought about it twice.

But you didn ’tfeel it was necessary then to par¬
ticipate in either the observance of Governor’s
Day or the demonstration ?

They didn’t have anything to do with
Governor’s Day. I mean, their demonstration, I
thought, was a disgrace to the governor. General
Edsall, and the university, in what they did. I
thought it was pretty poor taste, really, and the
fact that is really bad is that they got away with
it.

They also got away with running the leaflets
off over in the ASUN president’s office and dis¬
tributing leaflets saying that Governor’s Day was
canceled, and there was nothing done about it. I
think that the administration ... I know if I would
have been involved in something like that, I think
that there wouldn’t have been any doubt that they
would have kicked me out of school, [laughter]
But, I mean, these other people, they get away
with it, and I don’t see why they should be any
different just because they’re long-hairs and what-
ever-have-you. Just because everybody else is
getting away with it throughout the country, they
want to let them get away with it here, and I don’t
feel they should.

If the Sundowners did something like that. . .
in fact, they already did. [laughter] They’re more
worried about twenty-five Sundowners than they
are of three hundred or four hundred or five hun¬
dred or whatever-have-you of the so-called dem¬
onstrators or liberal segment or whatever you call
it. It’s kind of disheartening to us. I mean, I don’t
have any respect for the people that run this school
at all because of their justification of that. Some
of the things the student judicial council has let
people get away with . .. then they found us guilty
before we even went in there, and I don’t see how
they can justify letting these things go on. I just
can’t see it.

JOSEPH SELLERS

379

Well, what did you think was the most effective
part of the Governor’s Day ceremony and of the
demonstration ?

The most effective part? Well, see, I wasn’t
there. I mean, I wasn’t there, but as far as I
know .... You mean, as far as ... ?

Either positive or negative.

Well, again. I’d say the fact that they did this
and that the administration let them get away with
it; I’d say that. I mean, it just shows that they
don’t have any intestinal fortitude over here, and
that they’re afraid of these people. And there’s
no reason to be afraid of them, because all they
got to do is boot a few of them out of school and
knock on a few heads, and they wouldn’t have
these types of problems around here.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various factions involved up at the stadium
that day—the ROTC, the demonstrators, the uni¬
versity administration ?

Well, first of all, they let them march right
through. They should have just closed the gates
off and had some of the university police, because
they should have known to expect this type of
trouble. They should have known that it was go¬
ing to come off, especially after they sent out these
leaflets canceling it. They should have known
better, but yet, they just let them walk right
through. I mean, I think if I was the governor, I
would raise some questions to President Miller
and the people on down the line if they let this go
on. If they had to bring twenty National Guard
troops and line them right up there in front of
Mackay Stadium at the gate, that’s what they
should have done, but they’re more worried about
their trouble over here. There’s not going to re¬
ally be any trouble, because I don’t think that this
group that we have here on this campus... they’re
not allowed because they’re afraid. If they thought
they could get away with a great disruption or
violence, I think they would do it. But I think

that they’re afraid, and I think they have good
reason to be afraid.

What about the other factions? What should the
ROTC have done out there at the stadium that
day?

Well, I mean, it was an organized ceremony.
I mean, I don’t think that would have been a good
idea for them just to cut loose on those people,
really. I mean, it wouldn’t have shown very much
class, really. I mean, they didn’t show any class
by walking in there, but their hands were more or
less tied. I know most of the guys that are in the
ROTC, and well, their hands were tied. And I
know deep down inside probably most of them
wanted to go right up in the middle of the harass¬
ment, [laughter] but they’re military people. I
mean, if somebody would have given them the
command to go do it, they would have. But no¬
body did, and they just had to sit there, you know.
That’s all. They were more or less following or¬
ders, I think.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the fire bombing?

Well, I hate to see that type of thing. I’m glad
nobody got hurt, but again, there was no justice
there either, whoever did it. I know that they have
names of three or four people that were suspects;
yet, evidently, they couldn’t prove anything. And
I don’t like to see that type of thing go on—it’s
too bad.

What category of participant in these various
affairs—the students, the faculty, or outsiders —
do you think was most important in stirring up
violence on the campus?

Oh, I’d say definitely the student leaders.
How should I refer to them? I mean, I hate to call
them long-hairs if they’re something else.

OK, call them that, [laughter] That’s fine—use
your own terminology.

380

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

[laughter] All right, the long-hairs. OK, fine,
the leaders of the long-hairs are definitely the ones
that are organizing everything. And, of course,
there are faculty members involved, a couple of
professors that were mentioned that they’re in¬
vestigating now. I mean, they’re the ones that, I
would say, stirred up the trouble. When they had
that Kent State moratorium or whatever they want
to call it, it seems like there were a lot of outsid¬
ers on this campus—and this campus isn’t that
big. When you go to school here for three years,
four years, you generally know most of the
people. You’re going to miss some, you know,
but I mean, you’ll see them around. And there
were a lot of people that I’ve never seen before
that were up here that day, as far as that Kent
State thing went. But as far as the Governor’s
Day deal, like I said, I wasn’t here. From what
I’ve gathered, that’s the only thing I can go on.

Do you think the outsiders were important?

I would say yes, because I think if they came,
say, from Berkeley, they have probably more vio¬
lence or a different attitude. I mean, they know
what they can get away with at Berkeley, but they
don’t know what they can get away with here.
And they probably had a great deal of influence
on this group here. I mean, they know what
they’ve done there that they probably see no rea¬
son why they can’t do it here.

What kinds of actions do you think were most ef¬
fective in cooling off the situation that developed
after the fire bombing?

Finals and school’s getting out, really, [laugh¬
ter] Well, evidently they had a patrol around, but
I’m sure if they wanted to do something .... I
think that a lot of people—maybe the ones that
did it—probably didn’t want to see it get out of
hand, especially after they bombed the ROTC
building. Then someone came back and threw a
fire bomb in this Hobbit Hole or whatever it is
over here. And I think when they got a taste of
their own medicine, it probably made them think
twice.

I mean, no telling who did it. I mean, they
might have done it themselves—you don’t
know—just to stir something up, but that’s one
possibility. Another, I think, they probably real¬
ize that with the people around here and the stu¬
dents that aren’t part of their group (the aggies,
the Sundowners, and so on and so forth), it could
result in violence. I mean, you meet violence with
violence. I think they realize that, because in other
areas a lot of people just sit back and let them do
what they want. There’s nobody to combat the
situation. And here on this campus we have
groups that will stand up against this type of thing
now. I think they realize this.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image with outsiders?

Oh, I think the community has a great pride
here. Well, they have the one in Las Vegas, but I
mean, this is their university. And I think the
people in the community, they don’t want to see
this type of thing go on on campus. I know, my¬
self, people come up to me and say, “Well, why
do you let them get away with that?” They ex¬
pect us to just take care of it. But then we run
into problems, because the administration doesn’t
favor the Sundowners as a group at all, as you
know. Yet we’re the ones that the people turn to
and say, “Well, why do you let them do that?”

One minute you’re the bad guy, and next
minute think you’re the good guy, you know. The
image of the university—it’s this type of thing,
like San Francisco State. People around here
aren’t used to this type of thing like maybe they
have been down there for a long time. But people
around here are a little more conservative, as the
general community is, and they don’t want to see
this type thing going on at their university. I don’t
blame them. I don’t either. I’m completely for
them.

Well, what function should the university have in
focusing public opinion ?

Well, I don’t really understand your question.
How can the university justify this?

JOSEPH SELLERS

381

Well, how can the university tell its story if the
people outside are unhappy with this situation?
How can they focus public opinion on the other
things that are going on up here or keep the im¬
age straight?

Well, through the news media, I guess, and
they have their alumni letter—that type of thing.
I mean, whatever the paper gets a hold of. But
the paper is going to generally butcher anything,
you know, as they do. I don’t know.

They have like this N. Edd Miller Day, you
know. Everybody is for N. Edd Miller. I think
that was kind of a phony thing, really. So, I think
he tries to keep everyone happy, and he’s afraid
to step on anybody, which he should. You got to
have some guts. I think he should have stepped
on somebody for what happened around here. But
they had this N. Edd Miller Day stuff, and every¬
thing was la-la. Then, they had these demonstra¬
tions that the paper gets a hold of. I mean, they
make a big deal out of it, television does. I mean,
one little thing happens, and they make a big deal
out of it.

Maybe they need some type of a public rela¬
tions person for the university. Of course, they
have that on there, too. They do probably have
somebody, but it doesn’t seem like they really do
to the public. Like say, for instance, I’ll bring up
the Sundowners. We do something. We give a
scholarship, give blood, or something like that,
you know. You can call them up and tell them,
“Hey, we did this,” and they’re not going to put it
on, you know. It’s something like that. It’s just
our image is terrible because well, we probably
do some things that deserve it. But still, I mean,
we’re not all bad. I mean, but still we never get
any credit for anything. Maybe we need a P.R.
man.

Do you feel that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participating in the demonstration ?

Well, you mean that if they do participate in
a demonstration, and their academic freedom, that
they should be thrown out?

No. Is participating in a demonstration part of
your exercise of academic freedom?

Well, I guess it’s supposed to be according
to . . . they do it. I mean, I don’t think they should
get away it. I think that if they want to demon¬
strate, why don’t they go downtown or out in the
hills somewhere? I mean, that’s the way I feel
about it. I mean, everybody says, you know, they
have their right to do this, and to a certain de¬
gree, I suppose they do, but I don’t like to see it
at all, myself.

I think there’s other ways, but they get the
attention they want, and it’s on television and
everything. But I don’t really feel it’s right, and
they ought to go downtown or something and see
what happens if they go downtown.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally, or should they be trying to influence gov¬
ernmental policies?

No, they get the right to vote. The thing is,
they should have a voice, but they want to com¬
pletely take over and dominate everything. They
want to make it the way they want it; they want
everything their way. That isn’t the way it should
operate. I mean, they’re paying the administra¬
tors money to do a job, and if the students could
do it better, why don’t they just hire the students?
I don’t know. I’ve always gone with “you do as
you’re told, and you’re here to learn,” and I think
that’s the way it should be.

I think that times are changing, I suppose,
and they want more voice, but I think it’s getting
out of hand. It’s like this school paper. You know,
they do what they want. And then the board of
regents was trying to crack down on the school
paper. Well, they just say, “Well, you can’t do
that.” I think with some of the garbage that they
put in that school paper, I don’t see how they let
them get away with it. I mean, they sit there and
call the administrators every name in the book
and so on and so forth. It’s just that the paper is
controlled by the long-hairs. And with everything
you see in there—you’d think that the whole uni-

382

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

versity is all long-hairs to read that Sagebrush.
The people like the board of regents are perturbed
about this, but I don’t really know exactly what
the setup is as far as the governing of the paper
goes. They seem to do what they want and get
away with it. I don’t think that the paper stands
for what the university stands for. I think that a
newspaper like that should be representative of
the school, and I don’t think the school is a long¬
hair school. (What was the question again? I got
side-tracked.)

It was about political effectiveness, but I think
you’ve answered it very well.

Well, that’s one phase there, yes.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed now?

Well, it gets worse every, [laughter] It’s grow¬
ing. Well, I suppose it’ll stop when everybody
has grown out long hair, or something—I don’t
know. I mean, when I came up here three years
ago, there was maybe one or two hair hats, and
now I don’t know how many there are, but it
seems to be growing more and more. And no
matter what the president does, they’re against
him. I just wonder if all of a sudden there’s peace
in Vietnam, if this is going to stop this whole
movement. It won’t. They’ll find something else.
It’s more a form of rebellion than anything—go¬
ing with the peace movement. I mean, I did my
time in the service, and a lot of other people have,
and a lot of these guys haven’t. And I don’t think
they’d make very good military people anyway.
But it’s a growing movement; it’s growing more
every day, and I don’t know when it’s going to
stop, [laughter]

You have some other commen ts you ’d like to make
about this whole situation?

Well, not really. I said probably most every¬
thing—unless you have anything specific that
you’d like to ask me.

If you would like to commen t about this whole
situation as it is here. You’re a representative
person, and if you ’d like to comment more, you ’re
welcome to.

Well, that’s about it, I guess, really. I’m not
very expressive today. I kind of had a bad day.
[laughter] I wish you’d caught me at another time,
really, you know, when I could rattle pretty good.
I’m not too much on the rattling today, [laughter]

Well, I think you ’ve answered the questions very
well.

Charles Seufferle

June 5, 1970

Now, just for the record, if you ’ll say your name
and your residence and your position.

My name is Charles Seufferle, associate dean
in the College of Agriculture.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

My guess is because I was a member of the
governor’s party at the Governor’s Day ceremo¬
nies.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia ?

Well, I have kind of a mixed reaction on that.
I was in the army long enough in World War II—
from ranks stalling out as private and ending up
as one of the staff officers in Eighth Army—to
know that the only people who can really make a
good decision on something like that are the
people who are right close there, directly in¬
volved. They’re the ones that make the decision.
I don’t know enough about the situation in Viet¬

nam and Cambodia to know whether from a mili¬
tary standpoint this was desirable or necessary. I
assume it must have been, or they wouldn’t have
made the decision. Now, here again, and I’m talk¬
ing about this strictly from a military standpoint.
I’m thoroughly confused about the war in Viet¬
nam, as I was also about the one in Korea. I don’t
know how you fight a contained war. It seems to
me you either fight a war to win it, or you get out
of it. So whether or not that was a good decision,
I don’t think I’m really qualified to say, because I
don’t know that much about it.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

You mean from the standpoint of the
Governor’s Day?

Well, to whatever you felt followed.

Well, I think that the decision to enter Cam¬
bodia triggered off several things from the stand¬
point of a large number of students and faculty
and townspeople here in Reno who are in oppo¬
sition to the whole war in Vietnam. I think this

384

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Charles Seufferle, 1972.

was just, well, like the old saying “the straw that
broke the camel’s back” that triggered off some
of the activities that took place in the way of some
of the demonstrations.

Turning now to other parts of the country related
to the Cambodia decision: what was your reac¬
tion to things that happened elsewhere, stemming
from the decision?

Well, frankly, I don’t think the demonstra¬
tions that we’ve been seeing really accomplish a
whole lot in the way of tangible results. I mean,
they cause a lot of problems. Frankly, I’m aw¬
fully disappointed that it seems people have to
use this method in order to make their point. I
would much prefer seeing the less physical type
of demonstrations, to be able to use these rather
than to have to go out and demonstrate in order
to put a point across. Of course, I think in some

cases many of the people who are involved in
these demonstrations are using this as an excuse
rather than as a reason, but that’s purely personal
opinion on my paid.

Speaking now on Governor’s Day, what did you
think of the arrangements made for the
Governor’s Day observance?

Now, on this could you define a little more
closely what you mean by arrangements? You
mean the arrangements for the overall program,
the way it was set up?

Yes, for the Governor’s Day program observance
and ceremony.

Well, I think one thing that was a distinct
improvement over previous Governor’s Days was
the idea of really making this a Governor’s Day,
rather than an ROTC day, in having the governor
here prior to the ceremonies up in the football
stadium—to have the coffee hour over in the
union where people could go in and meet the
governor and talk with him. I think that was a
very definite improvement over previous
Governor’s Days where the governor has arrived,
gone up there, reviewed the ROTC group, and
then departed, and that was it. I was quite sur¬
prised at what took place after we left coffee hour,
[laughter]

Well, what was your reaction to the demonstra¬
tion ?

Well, when we left the union, I was with Dean
Hathorne in car number eleven, and we were so
far back from the front of the procession that we
didn’t know just what was taking place up there,
except that we could see that there was some sort
of confusion—while some rather agitated stu¬
dents (I assume they were) were moving back
down the line. So we proceeded to lock the doors
in our car. We didn’t know quite what was going
to develop. Of course, the only thing I have are
secondhand reports about what actually did tran¬
spire up at the head of the line.

CHARLES SEUFFERLE

385

When it came back to where we were in car
number eleven, nothing happened. We just fol¬
lowed the parade on into the football stadium. So
as far as we were concerned in our vehicle, there
was no violence or anything of this sort, although
I guess up front there were some cases of stu¬
dents getting on top of the hoods of the vehicles
and so on.

And what about the rest of the demonstration ?
What was your reaction ?

Well, as far as the parade around the football
stadium, this was, I think, fairly well organized
and was kept under control. However, after the
parade terminated and the group went up into the
stands—paid of them in the stands and paid of
them down on the field—this is when things got
very much out of hand.

Personally, I don’t think that the one group
of students who were down on the field should
have been allowed to remain there. The only ones
who should have been on the field should have
been the ROTC group. I think this was sort of
inviting trouble to have that group down there on
the field, and later on, of course, it did develop
into a rather touchy situation when they started
moving out into the area where the Sierra Guards¬
men were drilling. But I think that those students
(I’m assuming here once again they were mostly
students, anyhow) should have been up in the
stands rather than down on the field. I think there
would have been less trouble if that hadn’t taken
place.

As far as the demonstration by the demon¬
strators in the stands, I think this was completely
uncalled for, out of hand, bad taste. If you want
to cite individual instances, I think whoever the
student was who had the trombone, well, it’s the
most vulgar display I think I ever saw when he
played taps while the parents of a former student
who was killed in Vietnam were out there giving
a scholarship in their son’s memory to one of the
ROTC boys. I think this is quite typical of what
took place during the whole ceremony, where the
demonstrators were ignoring the rights of the

people who were there to be able to have their
own function. As I understand it, the demonstra¬
tors were supposed to be allowed to march around
the field and then supposedly were to leave, which
they didn’t do. But the stomping, the whistling,
the obscene names they were calling people, I
think were totally uncalled for.

What did you think was the most effective part of
the demonstrations and of the ceremony?

Well, from the standpoint of the demonstra¬
tion, I think the most effective part of it was the
marching around on the track around the stadium.
It seems to me that this was the most effective
part of the demonstration. If the demonstrators
had done that and then behaved, I think they
would have made their point. Everybody
would’ve held them in much higher esteem than
what developed later on. I think that their dem¬
onstration in going around the field with their
banners was quite effective, but I think what they
did after that just detracted from it.

What about the effective part of the ceremony or
the observance ? What did you think was the most
effective part of that?

Well, I don’t know; that’s kind of a hard one
to answer. Of course, I’m very much interested
in the awards that are being made to students,
particularly those things such as the scholarship
awards and this type of thing. To me, if I had to
label one thing, I think that would be the most
effective part. As far as the awards for proficiency
in certain aspects of military science, well, this
leaves me a little cold. I mean, these things are
desirable; they’re deserved; those kids are out
there working hard. But, frankly, I can’t get too
enthused about an award for the fellow who’s
most proficient in the hand salute. Having been a
G.I., I have some rather strong opinions about
that, [laughter] But I think, actually, that as far as
I was concerned, the most effective thing was the
presentation of certain scholarship awards to stu¬
dents.

386

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the ROTC and the demonstrators and the ad¬
ministration to what developed up there at the
stadium ?

Well, I don’t know who the commander of
the Sierra Guardsmen was, but whoever he was,
he did an awfully good job. He made a spur-of-
the-moment decision that was the right one when
the guardsmen were going through their routine—
and they did have fixed bayonets, which is paid
of the routine. When the group of students or dem¬
onstrators who were on the field stalled getting
into their ranks, at one point they had not gone
quite as far as they normally would in marching
towards the group, but he gave them a flank move¬
ment, which prevented them from inarching right
into the group with fixed bayonets. If he hadn’t
given that command, the Lord only knows what
might have happened after that. But, well, I think
he did an awfully good job on that.

I was very much impressed with the guards¬
men—well, also, with the entire coips of cadets.
When they were marching, passing by in review,
when there were a number of demonstrators who
were shouting rather obscene teims to them, shak¬
ing their fists directly under the nose of many of
the cadets, the cadets kept their eyes forward, and,
well, they stuck to marching, and that was it. Well,
to me, the cadets indicated that they are a good
group of students; they could very easily have
gotten out of control—and there could have been
mayhem. But it was the fact that they were kept
under control that nothing did develop. I don’t
know whether that answers your question, really,
[laughter]

What should have been the reaction of the ad¬
ministration to what was going on up there?

Well, when you say “the administration,” are
you referring to the president, to the dean of stu¬
dent affairs, or to those of us who were there? I
mean, in what level?

Well, whatever level you’d like to cover it on.

Well, I think, of course, paid of the reaction
of the administration that has taken place in stall¬
ing to pinpoint some responsibility here on indi¬
viduals is what is, I think, much needed. Of
course, with some of these things—the fixing of
responsibility on students, faculty, whoever it
might be—I think that much of this should have
been stalled a long, long time ago, and then maybe
we wouldn’t have had the fiasco that we had out
there at the Governor’s Day.

However, here once again, we’ve been hav¬
ing some discussion over at our place here re¬
cently on this proposal of the Board of Regents
about this document that Procter Hug has drawn
up. Well, much of what’s in that document is al¬
ready in the university catalog as it relates to stu¬
dents or in the university code that relates to fac¬
ulty. However, when you look through those
things in terms of the university code for faculty,
although it describes what a faculty member
should be, it does not spell out anything that
would transpire if he isn’t. This, I think, is pail of
the reaction now of the administration.

I think that many of us have come to realize
these things; that in the past we’ve always as¬
sumed they weren’t necessary. It wasn’t neces¬
sary to spell out what you would do to a faculty
member if he didn’t behave in the prescribed
manner. Well, now I think the administration is
realizing that some of these things are necessary.
Maybe this is locking the barn door after the horse
is gone, but I think this is part of the reaction the
administration is taking. Perhaps these things
should have been spelled out many years ago, but
here again, whether this is an administrative re¬
sponsibility or the responsibility of the faculty
itself I think is a moot question. Some of these
things were discussed in faculty senate meetings
several years ago, and at that time the faculty sen¬
ate took no action. So perhaps the administration
will have to take over responsibility, because the
faculty senate did not assume the responsibility.

I think the reaction of the administration is
that some of these things have to be spelled out;
some of the penalties have to be spelled out if
people violate the rules and regulations. Frankly,

CHARLES SEUFFERLE

387

I don’t think that the administration should start
going pall-mall expelling or suspending every¬
body who was involved in the demonstration.
This has happened on some campuses. I think that
this is totally uncalled for. I think that discretion
has to be used, but there has to be some penalty
on perhaps certain individuals who got completely
out of line.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor !v Day—the firing of Hartman
Hall and the Hobbit Hole?

Well, I wasn’t here on the campus during that
week. I was up at Montana State [University]
when that happened, and I got some rather wild
reports from some of the other members on this
accreditation team who had heard that there was
all sorts of rioting going on down here at Reno
and the like. Frankly, when I got back at the end
of the week, I was sort of happy to find out that
the only thing that had happened was rather mi¬
nor.

But here once again, this is the sort of thing
that I think is totally uncalled for. Flowever, I think
that it’s a matter that once it starts, then retalia¬
tion starts setting in. In many instances I don’t
think that the people who are accused of doing
this are the ones who are actually doing it. I mean,
as to who threw the first fire bomb or who threw
the second one, immediately the assumption is
made that, well, the group on one side threw the
first one, so the group on the other side threw the
second one. Whether this is the case or not, I
rather doubt. In many instances I don’t think it is.
But immediately this assumption is made. For
instance, well, in the Sagebrush , the local papers,
here we have the terms being used to describe
the two sides on this argument, labeling one side
“the long-hairs,” the other side “the cowboys.” I
hate to see groups get pinned down with labels.
This indicates that they are different.

On that Friday afternoon of the week of
Governor’s Day, following the ceremony over
here at noon, there was almost a confrontation.
We had a couple of group meetings over in our
building of representatives from the two sides in

this argument. In the group that I happened to be
meeting with (up in Room 305) these were mostly
students, and there were about three or four fac¬
ulty members who were there paid of the time,
not the entire time. This group, I think, after their
discussion finally found out that there were not
just two sides on this—and the shaip division be¬
tween them.

They put it up to a vote: how many of the
people in the room were in favor of our Poops
being in Vietnam? And if I can use these terms
that I don’t like, the long-hairs, however, found
out that most of the so-called cowboys were op¬
posed to being in Vietnam. So it wasn’t the simple
case that the long-hairs were opposed to Vietnam
and the cowboys were in favor it. The so-called
cowboys, as I gathered it from the discussion,
were primarily concerned about not having the
violence on the campus. They objected to the
picketing that was going on that Friday morning.

I talked with the pickets over at our building.
The pickets said that they were picketing the en¬
trance to the campus. A large number of our stu¬
dents in our building thought that they were pick¬
eting the building, particularly. So, when one of
the pickets came up on the second floor, there
was almost bloodshed about that time, because a
group of these students objected to having some¬
body interfere with their going to class. They
claim they’re working their way through school;
they’re here to get an education; and this is what
they want. And they didn’t particularly like the
idea of having pickets trying to stop them from
going to class.

Well, anyhow, that afternoon we got a group
of the pickets together with a group of the so-
called cowboys. They found out that they had
much more in common than they thought they
had. And this is coming back to the point that I
made before that I dislike very much these labels
of “cowboys” and “long-hairs,” because it indi¬
cates differences where differences don’t really
exist.

What category of participant—the students, the
faculty, or the outsiders—do you feel was most
important in fomenting violence on the campus?

388

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, here again this is all hearsay. However,
in talking with, well, several of the campus po¬
lice, with several of my colleagues on the fac¬
ulty, with several of the pickets, and with several
of the so-called cowboys, I was under the im¬
pression that the thing that caused the biggest part
of the double—that precipitated the trouble that
almost developed on Friday—was the presence
of outsiders from California being over here.
Now, how much these outsiders actually did, I
don’t know. This would be strictly hearsay or
rumor.

However, I do know that in talking to a large
number of the so-called cowboys, this was one
of the things that they were particularly stirred
up about—the presence of outsiders. And I guess
these same outsiders had been at the student sen¬
ate meeting on Wednesday night, and when they
were asked to leave, they refused to do so. Many
of the cowboys felt that this was a violation of
the ASUN, the students’ rights and like, and, at
least as I understood in talking with many of them,
this was the main thing that they were concerned
about—the presence of the outsiders. So whether
these outsiders were themselves involved in stir¬
ring things up, in fomenting trouble or not, I don’t
know. But I do know that the reaction from many
of the students with whom I talked was that it
was just the mere presence of the outsiders here
that got them all stirred up, and that this was the
main thing that they were opposing. Or, well, that
this was the thing that triggered it, anyhow.

Yes, it’s interesting. What actions do you feel were
most effective in preventing more violence or in
cooling off the situation that developed after the
bombing?

Well, I think, of course, one of the important
things was the actions immediately before the
bombing of the ROTC building: that was the
lengthy discussion that took place over there at
the student senate meeting. As I remember, that
was on Wednesday night, where Colonel Hill,
Paul Adamian and various ones on both sides
spent many hours over there discussing pros and
cons on this. Here again this is strictly hearsay,

but I understand that Lou Test, the senate presi¬
dent, did an awfully good job in the way he
handled the meeting that night, that things could
have really broken loose there, but they didn’t
(from what I've heard—I was not at that meet¬
ing). I was not involved in those discussions, but
I think those discussions had a tremendous
amount of good.

On the thing on Friday, I think one thing that
helped very much there were a number of faculty
members who participated directly, getting in¬
volved in preventing a direct confrontation. (Of
course. Bob Malone, the campus police chief, I
think did a pretty good job of policing on this.) It
was a very mixed group, a group of the ones that
are called the cowboys, once again, a lot of
Sundowners, a lot of ag students, quite a few en¬
gineering students, and members of a couple of
fraternities were pretty much involved. But that
group—I know I’d had a telephone call from them
the night before at home about 11:00, at which
time I was told a little bit about what they were
going to be doing. Well, the student who called
me happens to be one of our students. I talked
with him and got a promise from him that they
would do their bit in demonstrating at the noon¬
time ceremony, but they were going to do it in a
peaceful way, that there was not going to be any
violence.

They congregated over by the Mackay statue,
and when they came marching into the bowl, sev¬
eral things could have happened. They didn’t,
because I think there were several faculty mem¬
bers who were involved in this in keeping those
students cool. They went over; they sat down;
they behaved themselves. Of course, they did get
quite agitated, because they felt that a promise
that was made to them had been broken: in that,
they had been promised that they would be al¬
lowed to have the microphone for two minutes at
the end of the ceremony. However, they were not
given the microphone at that time, and they got
quite agitated about that. Well, here once again I
think there were a couple of faculty members who
were with them, who prevailed upon a couple of
their leaders, reminding them to keep their cool,
not to blow up, and I think that this helped con-

CHARLES SEUFFERLE

389

siderably. Then these couple of meetings were
set up for that afternoon to allow the two sides to
get together to try to discuss things and see if
they could arrive at any kind of understanding.

But I think that there were several key indi¬
viduals there who were involved in this, who kept
anything worse from taking place, because there
could have been a terrific blowup there because
of the way tempers were about that time. I don’t
know if you’ve interviewed any of the faculty
members I’m referring to or not. Well, I’m pretty
sure that if you haven’t, that you will be. I’d rather
not. . . Well, if you want names, I can give you
names, but ....

Yes, well, it doesn’t matter. How do you think
events on campus affect the university’s image,
so-called, with outsiders?

You mean outsiders like the taxpayers in the
state—this is a group of outsiders? [laughter]

Yes. [laughter]

Well, I don’t think that it helps it very much.
In fact, as an economist, I was making the pre¬
diction that what took place on Governor’s Day
probably cost the university at least five million
dollars. I don’t know whether you can measure
these things in terms of money or not. But I think
this hurt the university tremendously in many re¬
spects. One of the worst ways I think it hurt us is
that it put us in a relatively bad light compared
with the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. Right
now they are somewhat the fair-haired boys of
the state, because they haven’t had anything of
this sort down there. So I think many of the tax¬
payers are thinking, well, that the group at Reno
shouldn’t have our support; the group in Las Ve¬
gas should. I think that it’s hurt our image across
the state very much from what I get.

What can the university do to focus public opin¬
ion?

Well, of course, I guess this is the old story
of you fight violence with violence. I hope we

don’t get into that. I think effort should be made
to let the people in the state know that the dem¬
onstration and this sort of thing is a relatively
minor part of the total program here at the uni¬
versity, and that this is not an everyday occur¬
rence. Well, actually, if it’s compared with other
institutions, we haven’t had anything on this cam¬
pus compared with others. But I think within the
state, and particularly as it relates to comparing
us with Las Vegas, it put us in awfully bad light,
compared with them. And I think this is going to
hurt us when it comes time for the legislature to
appropriate funds. Knowing some of the mem¬
bers of the legislature, they just don’t like this
sort of thing. And several of the very influential
people, particularly on the finance group, are of
this type. And I think it’s hurt us a whole lot with
them.

Now, as to what we can do to improve the
image, well, of course, I think, from the stand¬
point of the cowboys versus the long-hairs, once
again I think maybe the fact that the cowboys fi¬
nally woke up and started arguing back a little
bit on some of these things instead of just ignor¬
ing them—this type of thing maybe will let the
people know that there are two sides on this ar¬
gument, that there are many, many students here
at the university.

And here again I probably sound like I’m anti¬
demonstrator on this, but I think this is the thing
that’s hurting the image of the university from
the standpoint of the state. For instance, we’ve
been trying for years over there in our college to
get more of our students involved in student ac¬
tivities, campus affairs, ASUN participation, and
the like. I think in the last election there was some¬
thing like 29 votes cast for the senator—and the
same sort of apathy is typical over in engineer¬
ing, mines, and those students just don’t get in¬
volved in campus politics. My guess would be
that next year, if we have an enrollment of 400,
there’s going to be about 350 votes cast. I think
the affairs a couple weeks back have finally got
our students over there waked up to the fact that
they should become involved in some of these
things. I think maybe now that they are going to
stai't getting more and more involved. I think these

390

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

things are going to help improve the image of the
university if they become known now to the gen¬
eral public.

Do you think that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participating in demonstrations?

Oh, boy. Well, yes, I guess so. It certainly
would be a violation of academic freedom to deny
anybody the right to make himself known as to
what his feelings are on any particular subject.
However, academic freedom—at least my con¬
cept of it—relates primarily to the classroom
rather than outside of the classroom. In this sense
I don’t think there would be any relationship
whatsoever between academic freedom and the
right to demonstrate, because the demonstration
generally is outside the classroom. Academic
freedom to me, anyhow, means the right of the
instructor to express opinions, to be able to talk
about his subject in order to do the best job he
can in trying to instruct his students.

There are certain restrictions on that in that
if this is a controversial issue, he’s supposed to
discuss both sides of it. He’s not supposed to
dominate his students onto one side, regardless
of which side it is. He’s supposed to provide for,
in other words, learned discussion. Now, I don’t
think demonstrations are quite the same thing as
learned discussion. So in this sense I don’t think
really there’s any relationship between the two,
because one is in the classroom and the other one
is outside. I suppose, though, it could be construed
to say that it would be a violation of academic
freedom if, for instance, a regulation were passed
that no professor would ever take part in any kind
of a demonstration that involved parading or
what-have-you. Yes, I would say this would be a
violation of academic freedom. But to me aca¬
demic freedom relates primarily to what takes
place in the classroom rather than what takes place
outside of it.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally? Or should they try to influence govern¬
mental policies?

Oh, sure. Sure, they should. Here once again,
though, I think that from a standpoint of both fac¬
ulty and students. If they’re trying to influence,
let’s say, members of the legislature, that they
should be doing this as citizens rather than either
as faculty members or students. From the stand¬
point of their position as faculty or students, the
channels are set up already, going through the
president’s office and the Board of Regents as it
relates to the university. It seems to me as citi¬
zens that they have the same responsibility as any
other citizens that try to influence legislation. But
I think it should be done in their position as citi¬
zens rather than as students or professors or what-
have-you.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed?

I don’t know. I don’t know what to expect. I
think I could make a prediction on that if this
were the beginning of the semester instead of the
end of the academic year—but with the summer
coming ahead, and a three-months interval from
the events that took place couple of weeks ago
until those students come back in the fall, I really
don’t know what to expect.

Do you have any other comments you ’d like to
make about the whole situation?

No, I think I’ve done enough talking, [laugh¬
ter]

Richard W. Sherwood

June 4, 1970

If you will say your name, your residence, and
your class and major.

I'm an economics major. I'm Dick Sherwood
or Richard W. Sherwood. I'm presently living in
Reno. I'm a senior and will graduate the end of
the first summer session, 1970.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed for this project?

Probably because I was an on-the-spot viewer
of the happenings at Governor’s Day, I'm an ac¬
tive student on campus, and I—from my stand¬
point, seeing it where the students are—can see
a change in the campus activities and the students’
desires and interests and activities. I can prob¬
ably have a pretty good idea and experience from
what’s been happening in the last semester.

Yes, good. What was your reaction to President
Nixon’s decision to go into Cambodia ?

Well, basically I was very shocked. I never
thought he would, and I had discussed with people

beforehand that I didn’t think he would. And af¬
ter he did, it was quite undesirable on my part,
you know—nobody wanted to go into a further
war situation. But then after reading many maga¬
zines and articles from a strategic standpoint of
what you're going to do, it was in its own way a
good move, strategically.

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

Oh, I think it almost had a direct relation¬
ship. The apathy on this campus has been pretty
much the situation for a long time, and just the
Cambodia incident—moving into Cambodia—
has removed a lot of the apathy and brought in¬
terest to the students in their own desire to get
involved and find out what’s happening, and get
into it, essentially. It actually stimulated student
activity—good or bad, I don’t know—but it did.

What was your reaction to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodia decision?

Not knowing the situation well enough, you
know, that’s a hard one to answer. My reaction

392

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

was that I was a little disgusted, basically, be¬
cause many students, I think, feel that they are in
a position themselves to make a sound decision.
Naturally then - reaction would be anti-movement
into Cambodia, because nobody wants to go into
another effort or elongation of the war or any¬
thing. I’d have to think about that one, you know.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangements
made for the observance of Governor’s Day?

From my understanding, the arrangements
were made fairly well. It was made very plainly
clear to everyone what was going to take place
where. The protestors had their place and were
given permission to use their place for activities.
The Governor’s Day’s activities were arranged
in another part of the campus, given their place
to take place. And this was drawn out very
clearly—on who was to be where. As far as what
actually did happen, it was in my opinion a direct
violation of what was arranged, as far as what
activities took place where.

Well, what was your reaction to the demonstra¬
tion?

I was just downright mad. I was really ticked
off about it. It showed to me almost a complete
destruction of the actual point that the protestors
on this campus were trying to put across, because
they were—or they are—preaching peace, non¬
violence, and constructive creation of various
things—you know, wanting to divert the
economy’s expenditures from destruction to con¬
structive activities. Yet, on a smaller scale, they
themselves diverted their activities from a con¬
structive, peaceful movement at one end of the
campus and came up and destroyed a movement
or an activity that was happening at the other end
of the campus. They just did a complete turn¬
about of what they are supposedly saying that
they’re for, and that’s constructive activities to¬
wards a betterment.

Did you feel it was necessary to participate in
any of the activities or the demonstration?

Myself? No.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstrations and the Governor’s Day ob¬
servance ?

I don’t really know if there were any effec¬
tive parts. By coming up to the area where they
had the Governor’s Day ceremony, I think they
completely ruined all effectiveness that they could
have had. They made a big scene down by the
student union. (This was after they had moved
from the area where they were designated to have
their peace sit-in or whatever, which was the bowl,
as it’s called now.) I think most people were aware
that they were there, but then when they moved
through, coming to the football field by way of
the student union, their effects, constructive ef¬
fects, were almost completely lost, because from
then on most of it was destructive action—not
physically destructive, but destructive in its own
way.

What do you think should have been the reaction
of the various factions involved in the Governor’s
Day—the ROTC, the demonstrators, and the uni¬
versity administration ?

Well, I think that the most effective reaction
that anyone could have had is what took place a
day or two after all this happened on the
Governor’s Day activities. They were meeting in
the student union. One carried on as late as three
o’clock in the morning. Everybody got together.
They talked, discussed, hashed things out. And
when I say “everybody,” I mean protestors, fac¬
ulty members, and the people on the other side of
the protestors (referred to sometimes as the “cow¬
boys,” and at this time, are the people who are
supporting the war). This took place a day or two
after Governor’s Day activities, where they got
together and just kind of B.S.’d for awhile. This

RICHARD W. SHERWOOD

393

was more constructive, and this is what should
have taken place instead of all the others, because
I feel that there were a lot of people involved in
the Governor’s Day activities that really weren’t
sure where they stood as far as protestors.

And a lot of people that I had talked to no¬
ticed that a lot of kids in the protest movement
were freshmen and sophomores—not just a few,
but quite a few.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the bombings?

I feel the bombings and the fire were just the
part of a very few people. I really don’t think this
was a massive, organized thing. Like I say, the
talks that they had and the get-togethers that they
had in the student unions a few days afterwards
showed some kind of progress, showed some kind
of intellectual interest. Instead of actually physi¬
cally going out and ruining something, they
showed some kind of progress, even though the
meetings that they had that day or the day around
this area, there were all kinds of people yelling
and screaming, “We should burn this,” or “Let’s
go do this,” or “Let’s bomb a building.” These
reactions I think you get a lot when people are
angry or hot, you know, or really intensified and
involved in what’s going on, and they really want
to go do something physically.

But the bombing and the burnings were, I
think, on the part of just a couple of people. And
I think everyone realized that it was a drastic
mistake, because this campus was on the verge
of being mined. I think the majority—and I mean
a vast majority—of the students realize this, and
they don’t want this to happen.

We’ve got a pretty nice campus here, and I
think everyone realizes that. Everyone realized
that that was a mistake and the first step in a wrong
direction, and I think that’s why things kind of
cooled down rather rapidly after this happened.

What category of participant in all of these af¬
fairs—the students, the faculty, or outsiders—do

you feel was most effective in stirring up or fo¬
menting violence on the campus?

It’s a combination of the outside speakers that
have come to the campus, that aren’t involved in
the campus, and that tour all over the country (we
had a few of those a couple of weeks beforehand),
and a few of the professors, which were involved
in the activity. I have known these professors
through having classes with them, and ever since
I’ve known them or ever since they’ve been at
the university, they have more or less preached
along this line: “If you want something changed,
you can change it yourself.” I think this is what
mostly got the campus moving, mainly because
it had to take something like this, because the
apathy on the campus was very, very high.

I mean, the situation of apathy couldn’t seem
to be seen very clearly through athletics, through
various activities that are thrown on the campus—
where you have five thousand students, and only
two hundred turn out. Well, in the first twelve or
fifteen weeks of the 1970 year, there were many
people coming to the campus, and they were hav¬
ing discussions out on the grass. They weren’t
discussions. They were mainly just speeches, tell¬
ing kids that they’re not doing enough as far as
making themselves known. And that’s all it
takes—just a few agitators (to use a word that’s
very commonly used anymore). I don’t really
know if this campus has experienced any real
professional agitators, but there have been a lot
of amateur agitators that have caused rise for this.

You think the outsiders are important then?

Definitely.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence in the situation that
followed the bombing?

Basically, that would be the actual students’
realization that destruction and violence on this
campus was not the answer. The town is a small

394

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

town. It’s a tightly knit town, and they understand.
The people of the town don’t want the university
ruined. In a smaller town like Reno, when there
is a university, it does affect the town people a
lot more than it does townspeople of New York
or San Francisco or other areas, and I think this
has an effect on quite a bit.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image with outsiders?

The university’s image, the image of the stu¬
dents of the university, is affected almost directly
with its activity. I was talking with some outside
businessmen. I’ve talked to businessmen that own
prominent businesses in Reno just because I hap¬
pen to know them, and they have told me that
they don’t feel that the students, the total volume
of students, are actually represented in what has
happened in the first part of this year. Since most
of the members of the community (I shouldn’t
say most, but quite a few of them are prior stu¬
dents at the University of Nevada), they feel an
alliance to the school themselves. And I don’t
think the image of the university has really been
ruined or changed that much except that they do
believe (or I think they believe) that it’s just a
small number that is creating this image.

What do you think the university can do to focus
public opinion?

The university itself? I don’t understand what
you mean. Tell me what you mean.

Well, what should the university—broadly con¬
strued as the students, the faculty, the adminis¬
tration, and so forth—be doing to focus public
opinion in a positive way? What function can the
university have in producing its own image?

Well, now we’re talking about an image that
the university should express to the public. I re¬
ally don’t think that there is any one image more
important than the actual image of education that
the university should want to be responsible to
portray. In my estimation, or in my belief, the

university is only responsible for fulfilling the
needs of education, which is what the taxpayers
are paying for. I don’t really think it’s their re¬
sponsibility to focus a view on itself of giving
students this or giving students that or trying to
make everything just real nice. I mean, I think
part of the problem across the country is that the
role of the university has changed so drastically
that education is no longer the primary role. And
some people think this is the way it should be.
Some people don’t. I don’t.

I think the university should be primarily
concerned with educating the younger people of
the world or the country, because if it’s not, the
education system starts going downhill. Once
education is over with, the whole country is over
with, because every one thing is founded on edu¬
cation. And this should be their only primary re¬
sponsibility, and that would be the only view that
they should show. Now, how they would do it
would just be by producing graduates, high-stand¬
ing graduates, and maintaining university integ¬
rity—keeping the university a university and not
letting it become a battleground for student de¬
sires, decisions, and expression.

Do you think that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participating in demonstrations?

Definitely, I think this is ... . What do you
mean by academic freedom?

Well, academic freedom is presumably the right
to learn what you will, the right to teach in a free
atmosphere, the right to teach without fear of
reprisal, and to leant without fear of being brain¬
washed, I suppose.

Right. Now, would you repeat the whole
thing?

[laughter] Do you think that issues of academic
freedom are involved in participating in demon¬
strations?

Yes, and it’s a basis for the demonstrations.
The student wants the faculty and the adults to

RICHARD W. SHERWOOD

395

realize that they want, that they know what they
want, or that they think they know what they want.
And they want to be able to pursue their way of
learning in their way .... (I’m trying to say some¬
thing, and I can’t get it out).

Students more and more are wanting to plan
their own course or their own road to follow
through education, and part of expressing this is
through demonstrations. They want academic
freedom to learn what they want to learn, but in
the same manner I think some restriction should
be put upon this, because it is the responsibility
of the university to produce a certain grade of
personnel that goes with that diploma when you
graduate. I mean, you should have something. I
mean, there is not a diploma yet that says, “This
student studied what he wanted to. He’s got a di¬
ploma for this,” you know, because there are cer¬
tain things that the university was created for.

And academic freedom is really a great thing.
I mean, I think there are a lot of fallacies in the
system, the educational system, where there’s a
lot of repetition, and there’s a lot of nonsense
learning. Yet, at the same time, there is a lot of
essential learning, which is part of the discipline
that you have to take when you attend a univer¬
sity. In a country of ours where everything is so
free, where the chances of going to university and
what you do when you get there are much easier
than they are in, say, a large country like Russia.
It’s a lot of freedom left to you. I mean, the grade
range is a good example of how far you can go
before you flunk out. And I know from studying
school systems of other countries, especially com¬
munistic countries, that only the very, very prime
students go to universities. They must maintain
that high grade level and that primacy through¬
out, or they will not finish. And this is bad in a
way. This is your brainwashing, as you put it.

Academic freedom—there should be more of
it, I believe, but not too much more. And even
though there would be more academic freedom,
that does not mean that they should throw away
some of the disciplines that go with academic
freedom. I think through the protest movement,
people are realizing it. The important thing is: I
don’t think they should throw away so much of

the other academic aspects which go with the
course of education.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally, or should they tty to influence governmen¬
tal decision?

In my belief I think it’s very hard for a stu¬
dent who is at the college level to be able to ef¬
fectively criticize the actions of the government.
Granted, they should know what’s happening. If
they’re a voter, then this right or this ability to
politically affect what is happening is theirs natu¬
rally through the right to vote. But I really don’t
think the students that are involved in protest, the
vast number of kids that are involved, are or
should be that effective on what the role or the
course the government takes.

What I’m trying to say is that, politically, the
whole system works when you’re voted into of¬
fice, so you have to do what the people say. Yet
the people that vote you into office are supposed
to be twenty-one years of age and mature enough
to know what’s happening and all this, whereas
students believe that they know exactly how
something should be done. And they know that
when a decision is to be made, they feel that after
the decision is made, and they have seen what’s
happened by the decision, that they know for sure
what should have been done.

There’s always the old saying that hindsight
is twenty-twenty vision. You can always tell when
a decision is made, and the mistakes have hap¬
pened—you know then what should have been
done. This, I think, gives the students a false sense
of intelligence or ability to know what’s happen¬
ing—they actually feel that the decisions they
would make would be 100 percent right. And I
don’t think that they know or understand this. I’m
the type of person that feels that when it comes
to making a decision and having very much force
or effectiveness, I’m on the bottom of the limb,
because I don’t know. I’m not well enough in¬
formed on what’s happening.

Faculty members? I think it takes a mature
faculty member to understand that young students
want to be impressionable, and they want to feel

396

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

like they do know something, but yet I don’t know
if they’re well enough informed to actually make
accurate and good, sound judgments on decisions
at the government level. And this is a big thing.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed now?

At this point I’d say in the right direction. As
school let out, there was a pretty good understand¬
ing that a lot could be accomplished on this cam¬
pus just by talking and get-together. The image
of, for example, the ROTC Department is directly
related to the image of the army. With the
changeover in staff that has happened up there in
the last year, students have realized that the staff
that is employed at the ROTC Department is very
much interested in what’s happening. And I think
at the close of the semester they realized that they
could really get a lot out of hashing things over
and talking, you know, and getting together. That
particular aspect of the peace movement is
headed, I think, in the right direction. I mean, the
kids are learning as they’re talking, and they’re
gaining more information that they need to make
sound decisions and make—well, it’s hard to say
accurate votes, but they have a basis for their vote.
They’re not just guessing when they vote, and
they understand.

As far - as movement towards peace in creat¬
ing an image in the community: to carry on an
activity where you are spending so much time
involved in a peace movement, I have a hard time
finding out where these people find time to study.
And we’re back again to the point of, well, what’s
a school for? You spend all your time involved in
peace movements, protests, and various activi¬
ties like this, then something else is sacrificed—
mainly your study time. I myself pay out money
to go to school, and with the little I have, I can’t
throw that away just to go out and have a peace
movement, because I know ten years from now
I’m going to be a lot more intelligent, and I’m
going to understand a lot more of what’s happen¬
ing. I may look back and say, “Boy, all that B.S.
that went on back in school—I didn’t know what
I was talking about, until now.”

Do you want to make any other comments about
the peace movement?

You can probably get me to, if you ask me
some more questions.

[laughter] Well, maybe you have some other com¬
ments you’ cl like to make about this whole situa¬
tion.

Well, I think all in all the students learned an
awful lot about themselves and about the com¬
munity and about the college. At the end of their
activities on Governor’s Day, we saw this by the
rash activities and disrespect that occurred on
Governor’s Day, the extreme disrespect to the
president of the college, and the extreme disre¬
spect to the governor of the state. These students
actually believed that they knew more and un¬
derstood more than the president of the univer¬
sity or the governor of the state, which is hard for
me to believe. After this activity there was the
bombing and the firing, and after the fire at the
ROTC Depar tment, there was the bombing of the
house across the street from one of the girls’ dor¬
mitories—where supposedly you could pin the
name of “headquarters for the movement” on
there (I wouldn’t really want to, but, you know, a
lot of the fellows that live in this house are in¬
volved very strongly with the movement). After
this, the mood of the campus was, “This shouldn’t
have happened, and this was a step in the wrong
direction.” And I think the students learned a lot
about themselves and learned a lot about what
actual direction they should head in along this
line of protesting or a peace movement or what¬
ever. And I think they learned.

I was directly a participant in the Governor’s
Day activities. I was one of the ROTC cadets that
was on the field during the activities of the dem¬
onstration and more or less had a front row seat
as to the activities that took place. I was also a
senior ROTC cadet, and I understood, I think,
better than some of the underclassmen what ac¬
tually was happening—the meaning of
Governor’s Day, what the activities were that took
place. And I think I have a pretty sound under-

RICHARD W. SHERWOOD

397

standing or a sound background to support most
of my opinion that took place on Governor’s Day.

I was the recipient of one of the awards. The
awards mainly pointed out the various cadets who
are considered more outstanding in the cadet bri¬
gade, and there is naturally a little bit more pride
in these cadets. They feel proud to be out there.
They receive an award for achievements which
they have accomplished. And being in this par¬
ticular group, feeling pride for what you’ve
done—you’re doing a good job—and then notic¬
ing activities such as the demonstrators interrupt¬
ing this, your chance of recognition—this gives
you cause to have a definite opinion upon the
activities.

Yes, that’s very good. OK.

Richard L. Siegel

May 28, 1970

My name is Richard Louis Siegel. I am an as¬
sistant professor in the Political Science Depart¬
ment, and I came to the University of Nevada in
September 1965. I was born and bred in New
York, and this was the first time I had been out
West, and it was my first teaching assignment.

I was particularly struck in the spring of 1970,
well before the Governor’s Day events, by an
upsurge of a semi-radical student feeling on this
campus. I attended two student-faculty-adminis¬
tration combined meetings that were held during
two evenings in, I believe, April of 1970, and
these meetings brought out a great deal of heat,
and very little light, in regard to the resentments
that had been building up.

Most of the legitimate resentments that came
out of these meetings had to do with minority
problems here on the campus. The non-white stu¬
dents were more vociferous in many cases, but
their problems were very often non-problems—
primarily problems of communication here on the
campus, where the students did not know what
the university has been doing. I generally regal'd
that the university has been moving quite fast in
most areas to accommodate student problems,

and I think that I’ve had something to do with
this in some areas.

The basic problem, the legitimate problem
that did come out of these meetings—and other
meetings of the time—on the part of the students,
was an absence of knowledge of the system and
how it operates here on the campus. We have a
moderately good system for accommodating de¬
mands on this campus, but it can’t function if the
students don’t know where they should put their
demands. Many of the students have the concep¬
tion that the president of the university is in a
position to solve all of their problems. Others
are convinced that nobody on this university cam¬
pus can even begin to solve their problems. Very,
very few students, except those most closely in¬
volved with student government, actually have a
real conception of the complete system on this
campus (committees and so on) that deal effec¬
tively with problems.

From my academic point of view this comes
out in a theoretical way to say that the students
on this campus are all parochials as far as the
political system of the campus is concerned. They
react to the campus in much the same way that a
Vietnamese peasant reacts to his governmental
structure. Some of the Vietnamese peasants be-

400

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Richard Siegel, 1970s.

come Vietcong, and some of the University of
Nevada students would sooner or later lash out
at the system.

Now, I was not present at Governor’s Day. I
was ill at home. I feel very regretful that I was
not present at the time that these events took
place, so I can have my own personal observa¬
tions of what happened that day and the immedi¬
ate days afterwards. I was ill at home for four
days from Tuesday to Friday of Governor’s Day,
and I returned the next week and became involved
in the faculty efforts to deal with the regents’
action on Adamian and Maher and so on.

I developed a position on this campus where
people looked for me to write things, I guess. I
prepared the draft of the faculty statement that
was issued under the name of the executive com¬
mittee of the faculty senate, although I’m not a
member of the faculty senate. This statement was
designed to try to mollify reactions, particularly

the regents’ reactions, and to try to minimize the
feeling of the regents that they were under se¬
vere pressure and also to try to ensure that due
process would be observed in any heal ings or
anything of this sort that took place.

Now, if I might address myself to some of
the broader issues that are involved in this. I know
myself I very much felt the full reaction that the
most intense liberal and radical students felt in
regard to Cambodia and to Kent State. In the past,
I have been involved in statements and public
appearances involved with the Vietnam War. I
made my first statement, speech, on this campus
against the Vietnam War in the first year that I
was here, and my attitudes have hardened ever
since. I’ve been involved not only on this cam¬
pus, but I’ve been involved through the Demo¬
cratic party. I’m on the state central committee
of that party and have worked to get platform
statements and other activities in opposition to
the war, so I felt myself very close in terms of
point of view in accordance with the people in¬
volved.

At the same time, I’m not very oriented to¬
wards the kind of demonstrations that took place,
I believe, on Governor’s Day. And if I had been
there on Governor’s Day, I would tend to think
that I would not have gone to the stadium or, if I
had gone to the stadium, would have taken ei¬
ther a totally passive role or a role of moderating
those elements that took a less moderate role.

I would address myself now to this question
of leadership on the campus as far as any expres¬
sion of dissent is concerned, and I think the ba¬
sic overall problem is a general vacuum of lead¬
ership in most areas. The peace movement (so-
called) on this campus did not have any signifi¬
cant faculty participation until the spring of this
year. It was dominated by students, both gradu¬
ate and undergraduate students. I think I would
identify Tom Myers, an undergraduate political
science student, and Jim Reed, a graduate stu¬
dent of political science, as the two leading
ones—perhaps Dave Slemmons, too. There is a
strong Political Science Department orientation.
But I think it’s less the fact that political science
students are a hotbed of revolution than it is that

RICHARD L. SIEGEL

401

these are the naturally most politically interested
students on the campus.

There was no significant faculty involve¬
ment, as far as I know, in the fall 1969 morato¬
rium activities on this campus. Myself and other
people took what we fully expected to be (and
what turned out to be) very peaceful, symbolic
gestures of walking down Virginia Street and at¬
tending what struck me as a kind of a church ser¬
vice at the gym in regard to the peace morato¬
rium in October or November. But there was no
actual faculty direction, partly because many of
the faculty had gotten a little earlier idea than
the students that the moratorium activities in the
fall of 1969 were counterproductive. They turned
out to be disastrously counterproductive at that
time. Myself, I marched, because it made me feel
better that I was doing something, although at
the same time my political sense told me that what
I was doing was not going to help my cause. But
it helped me in a very personal way, I guess.

The point again is that there was no direct
faculty leadership in this area, and there contin¬
ued to be none through most of this academic
year. The central leadership of the group last
year—people who had been most involved in
earlier years—many of them had left. Bill Scott,
who was director of the official peace group on
campus up until last year, had gone on sabbati¬
cal to England. Arturo Biblars, who’d left a few
years ago, was one of the more potentially radi¬
cal faculty members on the campus. And there
was nobody really filling their place—only to a
very limited extent, the very moderate, liberal
types like myself and Bill Clapp and Joe Crowley,
and perhaps Stan Lyrnon, Dave Harvey, and
people of this sort. There is not much radical
blood in us. This left a vacuum, I would say—a
vacuum as far as faculty leadership. The students
wanted faculty leadership. I guess it legitimizes
their points of view if they can have some kind
of authority figure associated with them; they’re
quite eager to get it.

Two people sort of emerged to fill this role
in the very later part of the year. One was Gunter
Hiller, and another was Paul Adamian. Gunter
Hiller, however, was less directly political. He’s

not a very political person, I don’t think—al¬
though I don’t know him as well as Paul
Adamian, who I consider to be a personal friend.
But Gunter Hiller is primarily involved in more
philosophical and more introspective kinds of
activities, and his involvement and, I think, his
overall impact was more moderating than any¬
thing else. The question of Paul Adamian is
somewhat different.

I would not at the present time go into the
factors in Paul Adamian’s life history and per¬
sonal life that led him to assume a position of
leadership over the student radicals. I am, I be¬
lieve, as familiar with Paul’s childhood, and par¬
ticularly his marital life and its effect on his ac¬
tivities, as anybody else on the faculty, but I
would not go into detail at this time. I think that
perhaps I would feel differently at another time.
I don’t know whether I’d be more or less willing
at another time. If anybody is interested and who
is doing work and serious research in this area, I
would consider going into this area with them at
a future time, but not at present.

Paul Adamian probably was the faculty
member who assumed this most direct leader¬
ship role, probably together also with Ben Haz¬
ard. I should also mention that Hazard, also like
Hiller, assumed generally in some ways a more
moderate role and was reflecting the particular
ambiguities of a lone, black faculty member on
this campus. His basic instincts, I think, are mod¬
erate; sometimes his rhetoric is militant. All these
people—Hiller, Adamian, and Hazard—are al¬
most by definition one of the more interesting
types of people to study if anybody was inter¬
ested. Most of us on this faculty are much less
interesting people in terms of the chain of emo¬
tions and undercurrents within us, I think, and it
led us to not be in their position at the time of
this activity.

The Adamian case has to be seen in the per¬
spective of the pressures that have been devel¬
oping within the state community in regard to
the faculty and faculty rights. I could say that I
was very directly involved with this in its broader
dimensions because of my role as the leader of a
group in the spring of 1969 opposing capital pun-

402

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

ishment in the state of Nevada. This brought the
largest amount of heat, I think, onto any indi¬
vidual faculty member since Erling Skorpen and
the Vietcong issue about 1966. My overall reac¬
tion was a relatively reassured one, because I
received some very good support from everybody
involved at the university level, although I re¬
ceived many direct and indirect pieces of infor¬
mation that pressures were being channeled
through the legislature and through the regents
and elsewhere. I was not a tenured member of
the faculty in 1969, but I did receive tenure in
January of 1970.

This question of tenure hanging over a fac¬
ulty member is a very important one and is quite
relevant to the Adamian case. Presumably, Paul
Adamian also received notification of tenure
about January 1970, the same time as I did. I
understand he, like I, had some difficulties in
having this tenure awarded. I believe that the
main issue in his case was the fact that he was
the only faculty member publicly identified with
the unionization of the faculty here on the cam¬
pus. This was about two years ago, and he had
gotten to the Sagebrush several statements that
the faculty ought to organize a UFT or AFT
branch. In fact, he went to the trouble of getting
the national TIFT or AFT people to come to his
house, and there was a dinner—which I was at—
with these people. I believe that it was this that
most likely the regents were reacting to, although
it did not come out in the form that they denied
his tenure because of this. This would have been
rather irrational in many respects, in that the
unionization of state employees is now much
more legitimate after the 1969 state legislative
session than it had been before, and perhaps this
is why this did not become a decisive issue in his
case. But there was some question raised at vari¬
ous points, and there were some difficulties in
getting his tenure, as I understand it. And, of
course, this word only comes out rather indirectly.

The present Adamian-Maher case is going
to have, I think, a very substantial impact on the
overall question of the freedom and rights of fac¬
ulty. As of this week, the last week of May in
1970, I sense already that the regents feel the

pressure to try to put in some new rules and re¬
strictions. A new code proposal has come out in
regard to the faculty, and I am disturbed about
the question of denying the faculty’s prerogatives
in terms of being given a opportunity to work on
this code before the regents take action. Only time
will tell what ultimate action the regents can take.

I appreciate the fact that the regents presently,
after the intermediate aftermath of the Governor’s
Day events, are under the most severe pressure—
at least in the decade of the 1960s—in terms of
doing something in this general area. This makes
it very important for the faculty to become highly
sensitive about losing any prerogatives in this
area and to see that none of their freedoms arc
unduly denied. And so I see the Adamian case
most broadly in the context of the preservation
of academic freedom, as I recognize it here on
the campus. I do not feel it necessary to have
unrestricted rights to disrupt campus activities
of any kind to have academic freedom. On the
contrary, I think it’s vital that we have total free¬
dom for anybody to say anything, or virtually
anything, on this campus without anybody dis¬
rupting him unduly. But this could be a hole
through which we could have some very serious
limitations put on campus faculty, on the student
newspaper, and anything of this sort. So we’re
now moving into a very important defensive pe¬
riod, I believe.

This is interesting, and it’s also because at
this time I was involved with the code commit¬
tee of the faculty senate, and we were moving
before the Adamian case towards the expansion
of certain faculty prerogatives in terms of con¬
trol of the educational program, particularly in
terms of the right of faculty appeal outside of the
existing administrative process on questions like
tenure. I have great fears that the activities that
have happened in April and May of 1970 will
make it very, very difficult, if not impossible, to
advance faculty prerogatives for the time being,
and we may move in the same direction as Cali¬
fornia, where we will lose them one by one. It’s
interesting, though, as a reaction to California,
that the regents in California have been taking
away many faculty and administrative preroga-

RICHARD L. SIEGEL

403

tives in terms of tenured faculty members,
untenured faculty members, and so on. I’m struck
each time by the fact that, here in the University
of Nevada, we never had these rights that are
being taken away from faculty [in California].
The faculty of University of Nevada never have
advanced in terms of prerogatives anywhere near
the level of the University of California. In that
sense, perhaps we have less to be taken away,
because we never had it.

Richard C. Sill

June 18, 1970

For the record, if you’II say your name, your resi¬
dence, and your position.

OK. I'm Richard C. Sill. I live in Reno. I’m
associate professor of physics and on tenure,
which has some advantages: it gives you a plat¬
form from which to argue important cases.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

That’s a moot question. My understanding is
that John Dodson, with whom I’ve worked closely
for the last semester, may have turned my name
in. And, certainly, I have worked as much as I
could on both the black problem, on the environ¬
mental problem, and on the more recent campus
disturbances relevant to Kent State and Cambo¬
dia. But I’ve gotten no publicity and have sought
none. So it probably was John Dodson. Some of
the students might have indicated it, because I’ve
worked with some of them, too.

What was your reaction to President Nixon's de¬
cision to go into Cambodia ?

I remember Hitler very well. You want more
than that?

Yes, if you like.

I recall being shocked at the Anschluss, hor¬
rified at the invasion of Poland, very much dis¬
turbed at the Sudeten takeovers, if you wish. 1 And
I regret to say that I have not seen much of favor
in Richard Nixon since the days he took on Helen
Gahagan Douglas. 2 As a consequence, I fear that
perhaps I expect the worst in the man, and what¬
ever he may have said as to why we went into
Cambodia—as far as I’m concerned, it could very
easily be window dressing.

Yes.

I might note also that the articles in The New
Yorker about John Mitchell in December last year
only confirmed what I had already suspected
would be the case regarding this administration.
Shall we say I did not vote them in?

In what way do you think the Cambodia decision
was related to what happened next on our cam¬
pus?

406

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

I would say that it is probably intimately re¬
lated, perhaps with a chain of events that is a little
more elaborate. The students had certainly been
quite correctly disturbed, I think, about the Viet¬
nam War. Many of them were disturbed at the
environmental problems—perhaps not enough, in
my opinion. But then they were lulled to a de¬
gree by Nixon’s comments earlier, I guess last
year, that we were going to de-escalate and back
off, and the moratorium seemed to have been
having some effect. To have him, if you will,
claim 150,000 troops to be removed shortly and
then invade (whatever the term you want, I guess
he has a different term for it, so did Hitler) the
hitherto neutral—nominally neutral—country of
Cambodia simply made them realize they’d been
duped.

And it’s a curious thing, I might note inci¬
dentally, because some things undoubtedly are
going to come out relevant to this: I’m a twenty-
five-year member of the Siena Club and just com¬
pleted a three-year term as a member of the na¬
tional board of directors of the Sierra Club, and
have just been re-elected for another three-year
term on the national board. One of the things I
see from that point of view gives me some sym¬
pathy with the students, because we—the club—
have been aware since 1892, and I myself since
twenty-five years ago, that disaster was occur¬
ring in the way we were treating our environment.
And we have been in the same position that the
students have of trying to get somebody to listen
to us. So most of us in Sierra Club I think are
pretty sympathetic. Some feel Cambodia is all
right, but nonetheless there’s considerable amount
of sympathy to the students’ difficulty in trying
to be heard. So it’s no surprise to me to find ex¬
traordinary response to extraordinary frustration.
And this is, as far as I can see, the students’ re¬
sponse—except, perhaps, to note that they’re sim¬
ply using what’s available to them in the form of
Madison Avenue techniques.

The disaster at Kent (which is what it is, as
far as I’m concerned) to this immoral and socio¬
logical disaster—even though there are fewer
people involved than often are killed in automo¬

bile accidents—has been a second turning point.
The first is the invasion of Cambodia, or I should
say the second, really. The involvement in Viet¬
nam might possibly be the first. But anyway, the
next succeeding one is the killing of the students
at Kent State. And our students were dismayed (I
guess is as good a word as any) at the invasion of
Cambodia and were horrified at the Kent State
killings. The day that the news broke, I was walk¬
ing across the campus, and student after student
would stop and say, “What do you think?”

And I’d say, “I can’t think. All I can feel, I
feel as if I were carrying a lead weight in my stom¬
ach.”

And they said, “That’s exactly the way I feel,
too.”

So it’s more than frustration: it’s the feeling
of disaster.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what do you think of the arrangements made
for obsetying Governor’s Day?

Well, I think, in the first place, I didn’t know
much about it. I never pay much attention to
Mackay Day and ROTC Day and things like that.
I’m over in a corner of the campus which nor¬
mally is sort of an enclave against such things.
And I heal'd after the fact that there were some
arrangements made for a (what would be the
word?) civil, in the other sense of the term, pro¬
test, demonstration. I didn’t know about it be¬
forehand; I wouldn’t have been there anyway.
That’s not my cup of tea.

But in any event, I had class, and the class
was from nine o’clock to ten-thirty. There were
four students at my theoretical physics class, and
the students in the class were not terribly well
prepared in their own fashion; and, as a conse¬
quence, I saw no reason to dismiss the hour for
it. So when the class actually met, and the time
came for ten o’clock, I said, “What do you think
about this? Shall we terminate or not?”

And they said, “Stop this just so the gover¬
nor can review the troops? Hell, no. Let’s go
ahead.”

RICHARD SILL

407

So I was continuing to lecture on theoretical
physics while this whole episode was going on. I
went across the campus several times on my bi¬
cycle and happened to miss everything. The cam¬
pus was totally quiet all the time I crossed. So
what happened there, as far as I’m concerned,
was hearsay after the fact.

I knew nothing about the arrangements be¬
forehand. In fact. I’d almost forgotten that that
was the ROTC Day, and this is a great admission
for a politically involved person. But I do say this:
that it was incredibly poor judgment, maybe not
on the president’s part—for whom I have a lot
more respect than some people seem to, even
when I disagree with him, as far as that goes—
but certainly on the paid at least of the regents of
not recognizing that holding the review of the
troops, if you will, so shortly after Kent State
could only provoke trouble, unnecessary trouble.
.Everybody knows, even Abraham Lincoln, that
you have to allow a cooling-off period. (I’m not
sure that answered your question.)

Well, what was your reaction to the demonstra¬
tion ?

My first response was, “Well, of course.” The
second one was, “Well, I’m glad that Jim Hulse
and others were there to calm it down.”

The press reports of what Adamian and oth¬
ers had done I don’t really believe. The only things
in the newspaper that I’ve seen so far that are
correct are some of the editorials from Paul
Leonard, which oddly enough are much closer to
the truth of what’s been going on than some of
the news reports. This is novel, because normally,
I think, Paul Leonard’s editorials on conserva¬
tion often show the mark of a man that’s not, shall
we say, well informed.

But, nonetheless, in this instance the only
thing that I’ve been able to see in the press that
looks to me to be valid in every instance . . .
where it has any bearing on things that I’ve seen
happen myself, they were correct, whereas the
newspaper articles were hopelessly off the

mark, [laughter] Now, what was your question
again, because it seems to me I distracted my¬
self.

Your reaction to the demonstration.

Oh, yes. Then after that I got thinking about
it: OK, this defines where people have to go.
There is no way out now except political. The
demonstrations will serve the purpose, if they
don’t go too far, of letting other people in the
world, or the country, know that there is concern.
And it can serve as a flag, if you will, for the
students and faculty and intellectuals and liber¬
als and whatever to let them know they exist. But
if they go too far, what they’re going to do is pro¬
voke reaction.

And so I started talking with the students at
that point—Larry Dwyer is one, and some oth¬
ers. At that point I said, “Look, you guys. You’ve
had your fun now, and you’ve served a useful
puipose, but are you aware of the fact that there
is no way out now but political?”

“Why?” they said.

And I said (to the ones I spoke to about the
environmental problem), “Well, you’re as in¬
formed as I am, or almost as informed as I am.
You may not be aware of the fact—have you
thought that the society can’t stand disruption?
Because we have over-stripped our environment
so severely now that in the event that the thing is
disrupted for two or three weeks, it may suffer
such dislocation, it’ll be never able to recover.
And we’re supporting far too many people in this
country now. If you were to disrupt the flow of
oil for three or four weeks, the factories would
stop—communication, transportation would stop.
With this development of spare parts, people
would go into a starvation situation. Pretty soon
panic would develop after this; and after you go
into that far enough, there is no way to recapture.
As a consequence, you’re stuck now. There are
two ways to go. Under ordinary circumstances,
even twenty years ago, there might have been
under such a situation two ways to go: one would

408

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

be revolution, and the other one would be work¬
ing within the system. And thanks to the envi¬
ronmental stress, whatever else you may think
about, a revolution is foreclosed now. There is
no possibility of going that way without destroy¬
ing the very things you're trying to achieve.
You’re opposed to genocide, you’re opposed to
oppressing the disadvantaged, and so on. What
more oppression is there than invoking starva¬
tion and ultimately the four horsemen?”

And they listened, much to my great, well,
not surprise, because many of them . . . Dan
Teglia, for example, had attended this marvelous
seminal - that Roelofs and Crowley had held (the
name of which is so complicated, I never can re¬
member it), a superb seminal - on the quality prob¬
lems of the environmental crisis. Many of these
people are aware enough of this aspect of the thing
that they were willing, at least, to entertain the
thought. And over the country there is some
awareness of this aspect of the thing, and it seems
as if much of the campus disturbance is gradu¬
ally quieting down and shifting toward political
effort. But thus far I’m very, very concerned that
what we’ll find is a reaction against the campus
disturbances that have occurred in the past, which
are relatively minor when you examine what a
huge number of universities there are in the coun¬
try, and only a handful or a dozen or so have had
significant disturbances. All right, so at Oberlin
College they sat in the dean’s office for fifteen
minutes. Tough. But, anyway, this to my mind
marked the turning point in what are possible
ways of achieving success in any sort of a rea¬
sonable world.

You know, one of the things that disturbed
me very badly about this whole episode is the
gross lack of understanding that exists on both
sides. And as a short-haired professor, I can
mingle with the business world very easily—I
play handball with the businessmen and so on. I
can go into the office of the president of PG&E,
or the president of Standard Oil, anytime I want
to. I can talk to the chief forester of the United
States; you can just name it. Thanks to being a
member of the national board of directors, I can

do all these things, as well as being a short-haired
physics professor. But at the same time, as a con¬
servationist and a mountain climber, I have good
deal of contact with the students. And many of
them chuckle among themselves that I’m short-
haired. I’d really be long-haired, you know, if it
weren’t for the fact that I’m allergic to my own
dandruff, which happens to be true, so I do have
to have my hair short. But honestly, I don’t think
I could stand all that fuzz around if I wanted
to.

In any event, I can talk to both sides of the
thing. And the thing I’ve discovered, essentially,
is this: that the students, by and large, are mar¬
velously idealistic. Ten years ago I was deeply
distressed at the way the students tended to be
concerned primarily with, oh, retirement benefits
and some fringe benefits and this and that, and
way at the end they say, “Oh, by the way, what’s
the name of the job?” God help us.

But the students nowadays seem to be ex¬
traordinarily idealistic, and as an idealist myself,
of course, it is naturally pleasant to see. But they
haven’t figured out how to get their message
across. They’re misusing Madison Avenue tech¬
niques, as I’ve said before. They have caught the
message of the society. I’ll say that for you, all
right. That is, it isn’t what you are, but what you
can appear to be that makes some of the differ¬
ence.

But in any event, they are also as patriotic in
their own fashion as some of the American Le¬
gion. [laughter] There are all sorts of students
who say, “I’d be happy to go fight in Vietnam if l
really thought it was buying time for the admin¬
istration or for the establishment really to come
to grips with the problems of war, oppression,
and so on. This is the important thing.” But this
has been going on since time immemorial, and
it’s about time to call a halt. We have chemical-
biological warfare; we have atomic bombs, in¬
ter-continental ballistic missiles, and all sorts of
crazy things; and it’s about time we realize that
there is no victory in war anymore. We want our
country to be the greatest country in the world.
And we have the ideals, or at least we say we

RICHARD SILL

409

do—all right, let’s live up to them. Now, in a way
this is a more constructive patriotism than the
person who quotes Stephen Decatur and says,
“My country, right or wrong,” and so on.

But on the other hand, the people downtown,
for the most paid, don’t grasp this at all. To them
patriotism is virtually that of being a computer.
And I mean, it’s your country, and you wave the
flag, and by God, you march off a cliff if neces¬
sary. And there’s room for that sometimes, to be
sure, as in the second World War when you had
to sort of call a halt to everything for the sake of
buying time, if you wish, to do something. But
now we’re on the other side of the fence, and so
that disturbs me. On the other hand, the students
in many instances don’t grasp the situation of their
elders, and they are responding by letting their
elders think for them. In many instances they’re
totally unaware of the fact that this is serving just
as much as a flag to wave as to wave the flag.

I’ve been frying to get them to realize that if
they wish to decide that the important issue that
they face is freedom of dress and appearance, then
that’s all right. But if they really are concerned
and serious about these ideas, that the environ¬
mental problems, the invasion of Cambodia, the
black and Puerto Rican and Indian and what-not
situations are significant, then it is essential for
them to recognize that they must find the best
way to influence the doubtful middle group.

They say, “But it’s ridiculous to have any¬
body make a decision on the basis of whether or
not we have whiskers and long hair.”

I said, “That’s right. But which is more im¬
portant to you?”

“Well, I don’t know.” And some are thinking
about it. And if it is truly the case, as I’ve said to
many of the students .... Well, let me give you
an example. Just a little more than a year ago, a
student in the engineering physics class came up
to me in the hall, and he said, “Dr. Sill, I think it’s
very unfair of you to disapprove of people who
weai' long hair.”

I said, “I would agree with you that’s unfair of
me to say that. But what makes you think I do?”

Then he said, “Well, because you wear short
hair yourself.”

I said, “Well (whatever his name was), it’s
none of your damn business why I wear my hair
short any more than it’s any of my business why
you weai' your hair long. But I’ll tell you, any¬
way.” So I told him about the dandruff problem.
It’s a ridiculous thing, but there seems to be no
way to control it except to keep it short.

So gradually the frown disappeared, and a
smile appeared on his face, and he said, “Oh, you
mean you have a medical reason to keep your
hair short?”

I said, “Yes.”

He said, “Oh, thanks a lot! Well, that makes
me feel so much better. I thought that you were
opposed to people who wear long hair just be¬
cause you had your own hair short. I feel so much
better about the thing. Thank you very much,”
and went off, and I had no more trouble with him.
It’s ridiculous, [laughter] Absolutely ridiculous.
But so be it.

The truth of the matter is that people are re¬
acting to flags on both sides. And I must confess
that you can wave more flags individually by
having long hair and whiskers than you can by
sticking one up outside your business. And if the
businessmen really wanted to provoke a confron¬
tation, why, they should start carrying flags with
them. Well, to some degree short hair serves that
same puipose. (Now, I’m far off from your ques¬
tion.)

That was very interesting. Returning just for a
moment to the situation up there at the stadium:
what do you think should have been the reaction
of the various factions involved?

Well, you’ll have to put a time base on this.
As of when? Before the Governor’s Day celebra¬
tion or whatever it’s called, or once the ....

Yes, the Governor's Day celebration. What do you
think . . . ?

410

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

At the time that the people started going
wrong?

Yes, in the conflict situation up there. What do
you think should have been the reaction of the
ROTC and the demonstrators and the university
administration ?

Well, the truth of the matter is, not having
been there I can’t say anything but hearsay. But
the impression I get is, how could you have asked
anybody to handle it any better? The soldiers, or
ROTC if you wish, stayed in ranks, tried to do
what they were asked to do. Maybe the idiot that
had them turn and do a bayonet charge, which
was scheduled anyway, right in the direction of
the demonstrators could have been redirected in
some fashion. But that still is the sort of mistake
a person can make if he’s got a programmed thing,
and he’s nervous and doesn’t realize what the
implications might be. But other than that, many
of the demonstrators themselves—the ones I’ve
talked to—were, in their own mind, at least, try¬
ing to see to it that things didn’t get out of hand.

I have at this stage no idea as to ... I haven’t
talked to either Maher or Adamian on this and
have no idea what they themselves think on mat¬
ters. But, generally speaking, they had apparently
some sort of permit from the year before, I guess,
reaffirmed before this that some representation
of their own point of view would be appropriate.
Some people apparently, allegedly, tried to stir it
into greater flamboyance, and others tried to calm
it down. Well, now, whether the others tried to
stir it up appropriately, and whether they did, I
don’t know. But if they did, or if it naturally
tended to go in that direction, the ones who fried
to calm it down certainly acted appropriately.

As far as I was able to tell, the president acted
with restraint. Oh, there seems some evidence that
Regent Hug may well have overreacted. And re¬
ports I have from the regents’ meeting the fol¬
lowing Friday and Saturday suggest that the first
response of the regents and possibly Hug—
though I’m not absolutely sure about this—was
one of vindictiveness, perhaps. At least that’s the
way it appeal's from reports I have secondhand

of the regents’ meeting in Elko. But, people who
came back said the first thing they wanted to do
was to take vengeance, if you will, on everybody
that participated. And he said, “I can’t understand
how they came out with such a relatively mild
representation.”

I said, “Well, they went into recess, didn’t
they?”

He said, “Why, yes. As a matter of fact, they
did.”

I said, “Well, there are some of the regents
that didn’t talk while this other protest was going
on in the regents’ meeting, weren’t there?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said, “All right. What do you think they went
into executive session for? As a matter of fact, so
the ones that were quieter in the meeting could
point out what a mess the others were making of
it.”

“Well, I never thought of that.”

And, well, be that as it may, but I’ve served
on too many boards now, and I know exactly what
you have to do when things go to hell. You even
have to get out of the public eye for the sake of
talking sense to somebody so that you don’t force
them to look like a fool in public. Let’s put it this
way: that with the political climate that exists in
this state and certainly perhaps even in the coun¬
try at this stage, they had to take some action.
And if, indeed, they sought an investigation of
the people whom they thought to be the instiga¬
tors, under the established procedures of investi¬
gation and law, so to speak, within the university
system, I don’t know that they can be faulted for
that, if, indeed, they stick with it.

So in answer to your question, with the pos¬
sible exception of those who may have stirred
the protest beyond its authorized limits, the rest,
as far as I’ve been able to tell by hearsay, well,
could you have asked them to do any different?

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the fire bombings?

The first reaction was of considerable sur¬
prise, because by then I’d been working with
Dodson and others with a lot of the students. I

RICHARD SILL

411

know many of the students, not all of them by
any means, but quite a number through various
connections: mountain climbing, seminars,
friendly meetings with the black students, and so
on. And it seemed to me that this was, shall we
say, incongruous. I was glad that it was put out.

And then the presence of the outsiders on the
campus first led me, of course, to assume that
they may have contributed in some fashion, and
perhaps they did. Certainly, there appears to be a
national tendency for agitators to move around
and see that things are stirred up. But the more I
have listened around the university community
and among the students and others, the more I’m
coming to the conclusion that probably nobody
was involved from the university or even the
group that was here from outside the university,
though I think they would have been happy to
have the fire bombing occur. But I’m sorry to say
that I’m inclined to feel right now that if it was
done at all, it was done by a single party, includ¬
ing the Hobbit Hole, or whatever they called it.
And if I were to direct an investigation, one of
the facets of that investigation would be to see
whether or not it might have come from down¬
town someplace on the grounds ....

Let me say this, that in my own home state
of Nebraska, it seems to me, as I recall through¬
out my childhood and through my university ca¬
reer, that about every two years the state legisla¬
ture would meet and say, “Why do we want a
university?” because they made a study of the
graduates of the university, and most of them who
graduated left. “Why are we draining our re¬
sources for the betterment of the rest of the coun¬
try?” So every couple of years they go through
this routine of deciding whether or not there
should be a state university and why they
shouldn’t just maybe provide scholarships to stu¬
dents. And nobody ever bothers—as far as I know,
they never have bothered—to look at how many
university graduates come in from outside. That’s
harder to get a hold of. And so each biennial bud¬
get period they finally, grudgingly decide that
they’re going to keep the university going this
time, “But we’ll look into it more carefully next
time,” type of thing. And I know enough of the

people around the state who are in a pecuniary
situation with regard to their own aspirations in
life, anyway, who tend to feel virtually the same
way with regard to university here.

I’m drawing inferences here that are prob¬
ably totally invalid, but you ask my response—
I’ll give you my response. And that is that I think
there’s more than negligible possibility, shall we
say, that the more trouble is stirred up at the uni¬
versity, the more they’ll get back to those long-
hairs up there that are draining money out of their
pocketbooks that can better be spent on other
things. I’m not sure what—fur-lined bathtubs,
perhaps.

What category of participant—the students, the
faculty, or outsiders—do you think was most im¬
portant in stirring up violence on the campus?

Would you try that question again?

What category of participant in these various
affairs—the students, the faculty, or outsiders —
do you think was most important in fomenting
violence on the campus?

I don’t think I’m capable of answering that.
The faculty that I know—oh, with the possible
exception of Adamian, (and I can’t really judge
his situation, really) and perhaps one or two oth¬
ers—but with the rest of them, they almost all
were attempting to try and see to it that violence
was, you know, curtailed, that constructive ef¬
forts were developed towards whatever ends most
of us agree to.

The students involved at first were fraction¬
ated. The long-hair/short-hair is a simple, but
oversimplified breakup. But all the meetings that
I attended, of which there were a fair number, the
students by and large were trying to talk to each
other. I didn’t see any overt effort, and certainly,
except in one or two instances of students who
tended to talk a good game—if you will, a vio¬
lent game—seemed to me the students by and
large were trying to calm things down. The ten
or a dozen outsiders who appeared at the rap ses¬
sion—I guess they termed it—in the student union

412

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

building were arguing essentially a standard and
a nihilistic game, but they were heavily isolated.

(I’ve forgotten what day it was—a Tuesday,
perhaps, in April. No, it would have to be after
that. It was probably—well, I don’t know. That
certainly could be pulled out of somebody’s head.
I guess, oh, probably Thursday. I’m guessing
Thursday, May 7, now that I think about it.)

This is too small a community in its own fash¬
ion. They were picked up immediately by the stu¬
dent body and the faculty as not having a normal
or ordinary connection here. And it seemed to
me that they were encrusted by response, at least
publicly—there may have been some they met
with privately that responded in some other fash¬
ion. But in the long run I wouldn’t be a bit sur¬
prised if the peculiar pressures that were brought
on the university from the business community
might have tended to provoke more violent re¬
sponse than anything else.

I’ll say this much: I don’t believe in violence
myself. I had a meeting with some other people
and myself in the university with Mike
O’Callaghan, the proposed candidate for gover¬
nor. And he was saying at that point that there
was bitter antipathy to the university throughout
the state. And he said, “Never in any . . . .” You
know, he’s had a position with the federal gov¬
ernment, wandering all over the Western eleven
or twelve or whatever it is number of states. In
none of those states has he seen such antipathy to
the academic community as there is in Nevada.

I said, “For God’s sake, why?”

He said, “Because of the things that they
claim are going on in the university.”

I said, “All right, damn it. What are they talk¬
ing about? Are they talking about the few things
that hit the press, or are they talking about the
fact that the students and faculty are spending a
hell of a lot of time trying to see to it that nothing
blows up?”

“Well,” he says, “They don’t hear about that.”

I said, “Of course not.”

But he says, “Nonetheless, they are so dis¬
turbed at the things that have occurred already
that they’re ready to close down the university.”

I said, “If they’re disturbed at the things that
have happened already, it’s about time we in the
university got busy and showed them what we
could do.” And this is a response of a person who
does not believe in violence. How would people
respond who did believe in violence? I can very
easily see how the pressure from the outside might
provoke the more violently inclined towards more
violence. And the fact that there has been no ad¬
ditional violence is perhaps either a measure of
our apathy—which I am sure does not exist
here—or the fact that people are beginning to be
aware that you’ve got to solve the problems in
other ways. And I hope it’s the latter.

Yes. What kinds of actions do you think were most
effective in cooling off the situation?

Getting people to talk to each other as indi¬
viduals. The procedure that Seufferle used in ag,
that Dodson used in ag, that Fremlin used with
the black confrontation earlier—and was used in
various other sessions that I and others were in¬
volved in, and I’ve heard about—was, essentially,
that as long as you talk as a group, anything can
happen. But when you give this man over here a
chance to talk, and then this man a chance to talk,
and this man a chance to talk .... And in a few
instances they did even a better thing—that is,
asked people at each instance to identify them¬
selves by name, so that pretty soon people were
saying, “I’m talking to Charlie over there. I don’t
agree with what you said,” type of thing. It’s an
individual thing.

The Homo sapiens is a most peculiar ....
And in fact, I think he’s insane in every sense of
the term, at least as far as animal life is concerned
on the earth. But, nonetheless, what you can coun¬
tenance as part of a group is not at all the same
thing. You can countenance as an individual in
the public eye—even with people who may more
or less sympathize with you. So getting things on
an individual basis, I think, was an extraordinar¬
ily important thing and having one person talk at
a time. And this was started, I’m very happy to
say, by Ron Fremlin early enough in the game so

RICHARD SILL

413

that by the time this other thing showed up, that
there was some at least casual acceptance of it on
the university campus. But as long as you get
thousands of people looking blankly at thousands
of other people, why, anything can happen.

And, incidentally, I think there’s one inter¬
esting thing about this: I think that it’s absolutely
unlikely—impossible perhaps—for us to solve
these problems without knowing more about man.
Anthropology, many years ago, was thought of
as the platform from which man would be able to
understand himself, stand off from afar. I think
now ecology serves that purpose. But, nonethe¬
less, you take a look at.... It is claimed, you
know, that man is infinitely malleable, that you
can train man to live under any circumstances,
and I think this is false. I’m reasonably sure, in¬
tuitively, it’s false, but I think there’s more to it
than that. There are at least four or five different
things you can point to, all of which are sugges¬
tive that maybe man does have instincts. And if
man has even one instinct, then you have to rec¬
ognize your society will have to be built to ac¬
commodate that.

The simplest one is the one that was discov¬
ered, as far as I know, first by the Schallers in
their discussion in the book. The Year of the Go¬
rilla, in which they found that a direct-eye view
constituted a confrontation among the gorillas,
and so does it among dogs and chimpanzees, and
it certainly does with man. 3 And it seems to be
entirely beyond civilization. This is true, as far
as I know, in every society. And, of course, the
Indians are even more extreme in this than we
are. In many Indian cultures, if you really want
to communicate, you look over the fellow’s shoul¬
der. If you look at him straight in the eye, why,
you’re ready for trouble. But walk down the street,
a busy street, and just practice looking somebody
in the eye. You’ll find they’ll fiddle with their
cigarette lighter or their cigar, or they’ll pause
and tie their shoe or look up at the sky or what¬
ever it is. And this is exactly what the gorillas
did, exactly what dogs do, exactly what some oth¬
ers .. . cats don’t, by the way. But in any event, it
looks to me as if we have to be very, very careful

about devising civilizations that are based on the
concept of infinite malleability of man. Man is
very likely so wrapped up in himself that things
that appeal - to him to be perfectly natural in their
own fashion are perhaps quasi-instinctive.

OK. So what I am saying, more or less, is
that you’re not going to solve the problems of
the city by city planners. It’s going to take a multi¬
disciplinary effort, and certainly the anthropolo¬
gists are going to have to be there. And I wouldn’t
be surprised if the ecologists will have to be there,
too. And so it goes. (I’m afraid I’ve just gone off
from your question. Try it again and see how far
off I went.)

[laughter] No, that was very good. How do you
think events on campus affect the university’s so-
called image outside?

Hardly at all, because the real events on the
campus are never correctly reported.

Well, how can the university focus public opin¬
ion ?

This is not so easy. We’ve been fighting that
battle with the Sierra Club for many years. Our
executive director is ... he was (he’s now gone,
thank God) a missionary and devoted captain in
his own fashion, but he was also an either-or man:
you either are with me, or you’re opposed. And
we managed to get rid of him after he started in
embezzlement and in grotesque problems. But to
this day we’re still having a problem with people
thinking of us as this organization which goes
out of its way to make people mad, and it’s either
all or nothing. Well, we’re pretty strong as far as
conservation is concerned, and I’m distressed
we’re not stronger. But, at the same time, you
can disagree with somebody intensely and retain
respect. I’ve worked this out myself. You may
think this is off the mark; I’m not sure it is.

Take the Humboldt National Forest in east¬
ern Nevada. I’ve worked very, very closely with
the Humboldt National Forest on a number of
conservation problems. I know the district rang-

414

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

ers quite well, the forest supervisor, and some of
the other staff. And when I disagree with them,
and I’m going to have to take some public posi¬
tion with fundamental disagreement involved in
it, I will talk to whoever is involved, usually the
forest supervisor and maybe the district ranger.
And, say, they both happen to be Bobs, so take
your pick. “Bob, I’m going to have to make a
public statement on such-and-such a date on this
matter, and I think you better hear what I'm go¬
ing to say first. Then it won’t catch you by sur¬
prise. Here’s the reason why I’m making it; here’s
what I’m going to say.” And I’ll read it to him or,
if possible, send him a copy. “Are there any seri¬
ous errors in this? Do you have any comments
about it?” I’ll have to make it, so you can’t do
that. So they’ll think about it, and they’ll respond
to the thing.

I say, “OK. Well, now you know it’s com¬
ing,” and so I do it. And they’ll do the same with
me. And the net result of it is that we’re on excel¬
lent personal terms, even though we disagree fun¬
damentally. There’s no reason why this can’t be
done with reasonably rational people, I hope.
Maybe this is what the university has to do. But
who does it? Mr. Olsen, I don’t think in the first
place can do it, partly because he may not have
the energy. He’s crippled, as you know. And sec¬
ondly, because the truth of the matter is this is
not “a university”; it’s a collection of people. And
in order, in the first place, to achieve any mea¬
sure of public relations or communication, the
university has to have considerably closer rela¬
tions in itself. And this means, among other
things, the departmental barriers have to be bro¬
ken to a considerable degree.

I’m fighting this battle in my department right
now. I’m practically the only person in my de¬
partment that is interested in things outside my
department, to that extent anyway. Oh, everybody
has interests, but, you know, I’m a mere physi¬
cist, and so you stay with physics, and that’s that.
In fact. I’m having a fight with my department
chairman on this right now. As I say, as a tenured
professor, it gives me a platform from which to
fight. But be that as it may, if the only chance we

have to solve the problems involves multi-disci¬
plinary effort, and we’re forced by the account¬
ing and bookkeeping procedures to stay within
our own departments, then we will not solve the
problems. Just as simple as that. If they are solved,
they’ll be solved from outside the university. And
the university’s role in the community will cer¬
tainly suffer.

Some argue the university should not be con¬
tributing to the solution of such practical prob¬
lems. It should be off on cloud nine, dealing with
academia in the old sense of the term. Well, per¬
haps, but historically I think the university has
been the innovator of essentially new ideas in
many respects, and perhaps it still should be. But
if we’re going to get these accepted by the com¬
munity, we are going to have to find ways of
achieving a relationship with the community; and
before we can do that, it seems to me we have to
know ourselves. And here we go back to the
premise that to solve the problems is it necessary
for us to break down departmental banters? But
even if we got those solutions, we’d have to break
them down. To my mind this is the sine qua non
of any progress—not break them down, throw
them out.

Take this Roelofs-Crowley seminar. They
had, I forget, twenty-four to thirty faculty mem¬
bers they called in from time to time to partici¬
pate as experts in the seminar. And I was one of
those selected, I suppose not because they think
physics had anything to do with anything, because
most of them don’t (which is another C. P. Snow
“two-culture” problem), but in any event I was
called upon to participate in the thing, and I chose
to participate as a student. So I went to all the
meetings and I participated as much as I could in
all the committee work. Most of the commit¬
tees . . . well, I won’t go into that in detail. You
may have heard that elsewhere, and if you haven’t,
that’s another very worthwhile thing to look into,
because to my mind this has broken through the
process barrier, if you will, for dealing with such
problems. They have shown, I think, in that semi¬
nar how you go about setting up a working com¬
mittee—a shirt-sleeve task force, if you will—to

RICHARD SILL

415

cope with some of these problems. It would have
to be more intensive, but in any event, this does
in my mind point towards a future mechanism—
or present, hopefully—but it’ll take a lot of do¬
ing. In any event, the faculty members that were
involved . . . well, they’d spend their spare time.
And I was chewed out by my department chair¬
man for wasting my time on this.

But let me give an example. Several years
ago I had some talks with the president. Presi¬
dent Miller, about what I will mention shortly,
and he urged me to submit this to one of the uni¬
versity committees, and I’ve forgotten it—the
university committee on educational planning or
something of the sort. And they thought it was
really quite amusing, as a matter of fact, to present
the thing I shall mention here to them, because
they’re a very conservative committee, or they
were at that time, Ken Carpenter being the only
man—he was then chairman—who had any
imagination. And it was amusing to watch how
embarrassed they were at a faculty member, a col¬
league of theirs, coming in with such a goofy idea
as the one I presented. And so after hemming and
hawing and fumbling around, somebody finally
found a way of giving me and giving themselves
a process for getting me out. So I went back in
considerable distress to the president and talked
to him some more. And so he suggested I go to
the Laird committee of the College of Arts and
Science, which I did. The Laird committee took
it seriously, reviewed the matter in considerable
detail, did not act on it last year, but the continu¬
ation of the committee under Jim Roberts did act
on it this year, and then fell flat on its face at the
tail end or the end of the semester. And I don’t
know how we’re going to get our results out. Well,
be that as it may, the basic thought, essentially,
was that. . . and I’ll give you or the tape here the
model rather than the whole discussion. But the
reason for the preceding, I think, is to point out
the difficulty of getting ideas established, even
by an idea factory. And the report, I might note,
that I wrote in response to my discussions with
the president—the proposal, if you wish—I could

not get typed by my department secretary because
it wasn’t department business. So I finally had to
sneak around and find somebody who was a friend
of mine on the faculty, whose secretary wasn’t
actually busy at the time, to get it typed up.

OK, the model. So picture a large, if you will,
infinite field covered with meter-high, white
stakes. (Have to be white so you can see them—
green, they’d disappear in the background.) Each
stake represents a problem: nuclear fission, for
example, or aid to dependent children or what¬
ever. But it so happens that in the university, at
least, the stake that’s labeled with a physics title
has to be hammered on by somebody who has a
coverall labeled “physics.” And if it happens to
have a hybrid name, it doesn’t get hit. Now, the
advantage of this model is that you can drive
things into the ground, of course, and that is an
accidental benefit. But the thing that is important
to notice is this: that the disciplinary effort is suc¬
cessful in working on such a concentrated basis,
but the things that involve more than one field
don’t get worked on. And as the disciplinary suc¬
cesses occur, and the others are left, apparently,
higher and higher, which can very easily come to
the conclusion that the disciplinary, or academic,
or whatever you will, effort or rational effort fails,
because look at these terribly important problems
which exist over here: racism, for example, and
poverty and, oh. Lord knows, all the many prob¬
lems that exist.

So that, in any event, I was suggesting, then,
that there ought to be working committees com¬
posed of people from ten or fifteen different dis¬
ciplines that a faculty member could devote time
to as part of his regular assignment. Well, this, of
course, is hopelessly naive, as far as the book¬
keeping processes are concerned, because it
doesn’t work that way. And it’s been now, I think,
almost two and a half years of effort on my paid
to get this to the point where a committee has
reviewed it sufficiently that it’s coming out with
a recommendation that things be changed. Well,
it’s no wonder the students get disturbed, [laugh-

416

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

ter] Because this is only getting a recommenda¬
tion out for the faculty to consider, let alone do
something. Well, so it goes. And that’s again a
wild digression, I suspect, although it is philo¬
sophically related to your question.

Yes, and that’s very interesting. Do you feel that
issues of academic freedom are involved in par¬
ticipating in a demonstration ?

Now, let me think. Yes. Academic freedom,
to oversimplify it, gives the university professor
or student the right to take an unpopular position
with respect to his society. And tenure gives him
a right to take an unpopular position with regard
to faculty and the university. And if you’re tak¬
ing, essentially, an unpopular position with re¬
gard to the society’s mores or whatever, then aca¬
demic freedom is automatically involved, yes.

Now, destruction of property adds an extra
element to it. And my general feeling on that is
that this is the thing that you do in the last re¬
sort—1776, if you wish. Whether that was the
last resort in those days, I don’t know, but, in any
event, de facto it was. You don’t start something
like that unless you’re going to carry it through,
is what it amounts to. As I’ve said earlier, I am
myself not an exponent of violence at all, and I
have to admit, a pacifist who would fight for
peace, if you will, and that’s a curious admix¬
ture. Well, in other words, if I felt that my fight¬
ing would constructively produce peace, I might
be willing to do so, and I understand that many
of the students think that way. But was it [George
Bernard] Shaw who made the statement that—I
never can quote it right—about youth being such
a great boon, that it’s a shame that it’s given to
the young, who are too young to appreciate it?
Well, he said it better than that, of course.

But one of the biggest problems with the
youth right now—and I suppose it’s always been
true—is, in the first place, impetuosity (which I
share even at the age of forty-seven), but perhaps
not the breadth of experience to realize that even
the guy they disagree the most fundamentally with

has an argument on his side. And once you rec¬
ognize that point, I think perhaps you’re a little
more in a position to stop and say, “Now, if he
has a point that’s valid on his side, maybe a few
of mine aren’t.” And hopefully out of this comes
something that’s better. But there are a lot of
people who are expressing what for all practical
purposes is the Gotterdammerung approach—in
other words, either me or not, that it’s either got
to be all right, or there isn’t going to be anything.
Now, this, in my opinion, is an evidence of gross
societal paranoia or even species paranoia, be¬
cause where else in nature do you find any ani¬
mal that has to have things his own way, and, by
God, if that isn’t the case, you’ll kill everything
around.

We’re doing that, or we’re thinking to do so.
And you can argue with new ecological knowl¬
edge that in order for any stable structure to ex¬
ist, you must have the maximum degree of com¬
plexity and things of this sort—one of the few
fundamental principles of ecology that are pretty
well recognized, with a few exceptions, of course,
such as in the arctic-alpine zone. But fundamen¬
tally, if you’re going to have anything that con¬
stitutes stability, you have to have extraordinary
complexity with all sorts of feedback loops. And
man ostensibly hopes to survive, and if he does,
then it’s essential for him to see to it that the trum¬
peter swan will survive, and the tule elk, the con¬
dors, the creosote bush, and so on. So that even
in self-interest . . . though admittedly the knowl¬
edge that this is self-interest is not thoroughly
understood yet. But even in terms of self-inter¬
est, man can’t afford to act any further in this
fashion. But here we go: “You’re either going to
do it my way, or we’ll all go down together,” in¬
cluding all the rest of life—4.5, 5 billion years of
development. I can’t take that exalted a position
of human life on earth any more than I can take
that exalted a position in regard to myself: “I’ll
have things my way, or I’ll destroy everybody
else.” We, as humans, will have things our way,
or we’ll destroy everything else—to me this is,
as I say, an advanced form of paranoia, which
man as a species seems to be subject to.

RICHARD SILL

417

How do you think students and faculty can be
effective politically, or should they be trying to
influence?

They have to be. They have to be. How they
can be ... ? Well, to take the simplest and stu¬
pidest example, is cut their hair and whiskers off.
[laughter] And the students react pretty badly to
that thing, and they say, “That’s just because you
have short hair on yourself.”

And I say, “No. I don’t think so. The point is,
what do you think is important?” And when you
consider the fact that if you could shift—what
was it in the last election, fifty thousand votes or
something like that—you’d have had a different
president. Now, is it worth paying three bucks a
haircut for a while or even taking the trouble of
cutting each other’s hair for the sake of shifting
fifty thousand votes? Well, maybe it’ll be more
than that. All right, so a million votes. And the
answer is, “What do you think is important? If
you really take these problems seriously, if you
really take them seriously, then these other things
are trivial.” And if the time came that in order to
influence people you had to have your hair long,
well, then you’d have to do so, unless per¬
haps .... In my case I have a medical reason.

But the truth of the matter is that, “What are
you trying to do?” And if you’re trying to make
some substantial changes that work, basi¬
cally .... Remember the case of Korea?
Syngman Rhee (I never can pronounce his name
correctly) was put in, essentially, as a puppet by
the Americans, by the American military. 4 And I
should have realized at the time, I suppose, that
we were moving in a bad direction. But at the
time, well, it’s awfully hard sometimes to recog¬
nize turning points, and I hoped that that was sim¬
ply a pause on the way of something better. So
how was he eventually overthrown? By the stu¬
dents. And for all practical purposes, he had a
military dictatorship at the time, and who over¬
threw him? Students. And it was after the fact.
Don’t wait that long. Let’s do it right now. And
the only way to do it now is politically.

And how can the university be effective?
Well, one of the ways the university can be ef¬

fective, and probably the students more than any¬
one else, first of all, is do whatever is necessary
in the way of trivial matters, like dress and hair¬
cuts and what-not. And then go home and inform
yourself thoroughly. Go home to your home en¬
vironment: “Joe’s boy wouldn’t do any of that
type of thing.” And there’s the chance to influ¬
ence the whole state.

These are local matters. People say, for ex¬
ample, “Well, we tried that in 1968.”

I said, “Yes, but there you were trying to elect
one man.” Now, everything is on a local basis.
Essentially, you have the entire House of Repre¬
sentatives, one-third of the senate, and half the
governorships are up for grabs right now. And
all of these are local issues: “You can all go back
to your own homes and make the minor sacri¬
fices, if that’s what it amounts to.” Although in
the summer I should think that much hair
wouldn’t help them, anyway. But in any event,
“Go back to your homes and talk to people as
Joe’s boy. And in the process you can change the
whole future of civilization. Isn’t it worth it?”

“Well, yes, but if you go along with some¬
body partway, why, in effect, you’ve sold your
soul, and you’re going all the way.”

I said, “All right, then you’re saying that it’s
all going to be my way or else, and that’s what’s
important. What right do you have to assume that
you are right on everything ?” I happen to feel
very strongly that there should be complete free¬
dom of dress, that if somebody wants to go along
without anything on, that’s his business. As far
as I’m concerned, it doesn’t affect me at all. But
at the same time it does affect me if, in adhering
to something which is essentially a triviality in
its own fashion—because in the long run dress is
trivial—you destroy something which is infinitely
more significant. You’d be nuts—to use the
simple term, [laughter] I hate to say “insane”; it
isn’t quite as bad as that, but “nuts” is right.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed now?

I don’t think I’m in a position to comment on
that. I don’t know. You mean Reno or Nevada?

418

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Yes. Locally, as in which way you see it locally.

Well, at this stage I don’t know. I hope it’s
going political. Dan Teglia says that he’s going
to run for assembly or county commissioner or
something, not that he expects to be elected, but
so that he can bring out some issues along the
line. And when we had a meeting with him—Jim
Hulse and I and some others had a meeting with
him and some of the other students on this mat¬
ter—finally, Jim said, “Well, you realize, of
course, that if you’re going to have any chance at
all to be listened to, you’re going to have to be
clean-cut.”

And Dan said, “We will be.” [laughter]

But they are naive to some degree, because
in the puipose . . . it’s a little like McCarthy in its
own fashion, because in putting up somebody that
is idealistic—or at least would be satisfactory in
their own opinion—even though you’re going to
lose, it’s better to go down in a good cause than
win in a poor cause. There may be some point in
that, except that it has such fierce overtones now
in terms of life on earth.

But the idea of supporting Charlie
Springer . . . the only thing they’re going to do
for sure is get Ed Fike in. And when I was talking
to Mike O’Callaghan, I said, “What should the
university’s position be with regard to political
things? Is there such antipathy to the university
now that what we ought to do is to get out and
ostensibly support people like Bill Raggio so that
people react against us and support Cannon?”

And he said, “Well. . . .” and he thought that
was pretty transparent. But finally he essentially
agreed, I think, that the proper thing is for the
kids to cut their locks, if you will, and go home
and talk to people on a local basis. “And,” he
says, “if you can keep your long hair and fold
envelopes and stuff envelopes and run mimeo¬
graph machines and keep out of the public eye,
you can do a lot of work if that’s what you’re
willing to do.”

The students are serious, all right, but I don’t
think they’re serious enough. In some respects I
consider them fly-by-nights politically, because

they haven’t yet, in my opinion, recognized how
terribly serious these problems really are.

Do you have some other comments you ’d like to
make about this whole situation?

Well, maybe. It’s refreshing to see people
thinking and reacting and being aware of things.
As I say, ten years ago it was appalling. But
there’s lack of understanding. And I don’t blame
those young people, I suppose, and I don’t really
blame the society as a whole, because for many
years we’ve been distracted from any real knowl¬
edge. Take the case when I was an instructor. A
student came in to me one time—this is the start
of the McCarthy era—and he said, “Mr. Sill, I
really think we all ought to be investigated by
the FBI every six months.”

And I said, “For God’s sake, why?”

He said, “Well, we might have become a
Communist and not even know it ourselves.”

I said, “What do you think this is like, vene¬
real disease or something? And even there at least
you’d have some reason to suspect you might have
contracted it along the line.” Well, needless to
say, that didn’t get anywhere. He didn’t under¬
stand.

But in some respects so much of the busi¬
ness community and even the student body in
many instances don’t understand what commu¬
nism is all about or how it works. And I regret to
say that I don’t, either. I know more about it than
they do just because I’ve lived longer in some
cases and have been in an aware situation in some
respects. But the environmental problem has
reached the stage now. I’d say, where the ques¬
tion of whether we shall be communistic or capi¬
talistic or whatever it is, has become trivial. It’s
archaic. It has no bearing on things, except in one
respect: and that is we don’t have time to experi¬
ment. Fet’s hypothesize, for example, that (oh, I
don’t know) that capitalism will turn out as I sus¬
pect it will—to be the effective way to deal with
the environmental problem. As, for example, ev¬
ery two years we can practically overturn the
whole government if we really put our mind to it.

RICHARD SILL

419

And in the meantime we can, by pressure, change
political complexion of the legislatures, national
and local, substantially if we really want to. You
can’t do that in at least the more tyrannical forms
of government.

So, well, be that as it may. Back to the origi¬
nal hypothesis. I think that you could say, “OK.
If capitalism or democracy—whatever—is the
effective way to solve the environmental prob¬
lems, the Russians are stuck.” They don’t have
time to experiment, because they’ve over-stressed
their environment almost to the same degree that
we have, more effectively in many ways than we
have, I mean, more destruction per square citi¬
zen, if you will. And by the same token, we don’t
have time to experiment.

My wife and I took a hiking vacation in the
Montana wilderness area on spring vacation, and
there we met two youngsters from Palo Alto High
School who were deep in the ecological move¬
ment. And at that time they were preaching that
revolution is the only possible way to solve the
environmental problems. And rather than argue
with them on that particular basis, I started talk¬
ing in terms of the problems of, oh, for example,
how long you can be deprived of coal or iron or
steel or gold or whatever it is and still have the
society pick up. After an hour or so of discussion
on that basis, some of the facts they’d known
themselves had been put together. One of them
turned to the other one and says, “Sean, you know
what that indicates?”

And he said, “Yes, Doug. It means that we
have to solve the problems within the system.”

Why isn’t that information made available
to us? Because they . . . well, I don’t know. Well,
I will say this, that Larry Dwyer is working with
me on a Nevada Environmental Foundation
project right now, attempting, among other things,
to begin to collect that information. We are find¬
ing all sorts of places around the state where in¬
formation exists. They will not give it to us, be¬
cause they’re afraid it might get in the hands of
the enemy. Now, as the deputy—I can’t ever re¬
member my title—director or deputy chief of the
production committee of the Office of Emergency

Planning (Jim Anderson is the head), we spent a
fair amount of time dealing with the crisis situa¬
tion in the state and how much food there is and
things of that sort. And as far as civil defense is
concerned, one knows very, very well that if you
deprive goods and services or petroleum or what¬
ever it is, even communication, for a substantial
period of time, all disaster ensues. And yet the
information that people have to have . . . and their
national televised interviews with young people
who have flatly said, “The only way to solve the
problem is go to communism or socialism or
something along the line,” have no idea of the
severity of the stress problem or how the struc¬
ture works, or the fact that if you disrupt it even
in trivial fashion, that the thing can fall completely
apart. And Walter Voskuil pointed out that if the
air controllers, the Bell Telephone, and the post
office had all gone out at the same time for two
or three weeks, we might be in a starvation situa¬
tion just from that alone. And that’s not even re¬
sources; it’s just services.

About the degree to which the society can
survive: well, let’s document that with a few very
obvious examples. Let’s go back to, say, 1870.
How long could the country have survived and
maintained its level... or shall we say, survived?
I guess I’m trying to say, how long can you be
deprived of something and then have that resup¬
plied in some fashion and still pick up where you
were before, without having a significant degra¬
dation on the level of organization or population
or whatever you want? Back in 1870 how long
could you be deprived of oil? Forever, for all prac¬
tical puiposes. Sure, a few hundred years later
society wouldn’t have continued to develop, but
certainly for one year or five years, ten years, you
probably could have got by without any severe
deprivation by not having any oil. How long
would you be able to do so now? Well, hell, we’re
using four billion barrels of oil a year! And much
of this is being used, among other things, either
directly to synthesize fertilizer or in the process
of providing energy to—oh, for example—pre¬
cipitate, if you will (to use a non-correct term),
nitrogen from the atmosphere in making ammo-

420

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

nia fertilizer and things of that sort. So that since
we’re running unheard of... . Oh. the corn.
We’re nearly a hundred . . . maybe, I guess, it’s
over a hundred bushels per acre now. This is fan¬
tastic. You just can’t do this without advanced
technology, without the use of fertilizers and, God
forbid, even insecticides, although the conserva¬
tionists ... I think we’ve gone haywire on that,
too. We usually do. And we have food, for ex¬
ample, in Nevada that would enable a society to
survive for the order of three weeks. And we have
more food available here than California does
partly because of the Freeport Law, and we have
stuff that we’d have to cabbage (no pun intended)
in order for us to survive three weeks without
going into at least a semi-starvation configura¬
tion. 5 Anyway, as time has passed on, the time
that we can go deprived of any given thing has
got shorter and shorter and shorter, and accord¬
ing to Walter Voskuil, who’s an economic geolo¬
gist at the university here, we’ve now reached a
place where some of these things are almost be¬
ginning to be negative. And once any one of them
does go negative, there isn’t one damn thing we
can do to keep the society going. It’ll have to
collapse in one fashion or another.

Suppose, for example, that we aren’t able to
produce enough, oh, well, petroleum or get
enough petroleum to keep the society going; we
just can’t get it. Then this means something has
to be turned off. Well, the first thing, of course,
there will be gas rationing, and there will be pri¬
vate automobiles and such that will no longer be
usable. And this will probably stabilize things for
a little bit, but think of this: the cost per oil well
is increasing, partly because you have to do more
exploration, partly because you have to drill more
deeply, partly because, oh, just the additional tech¬
nology that’s associated with it. The only way
that you can maintain any reasonable and com¬
petitive price with other forms of energy, let’s
say—even some of them being restricted—is by
having volume of business, as the old joke had it.
This means that you have to go to an ever-ex¬
panding use of resource, which you have to have
an ever-expanding use of, because you’re run¬

ning out of it. So the environmental aspects of
the problem ....

Let’s go someplace else. There are four things
we’re doing right now that I know of, any one of
which is seriously threatening higher life on earth,
exclusive of war. One of them is DDT and the
polychlorinated biphenyls, which are used in in¬
dustry in making plastics and degradation of plas¬
tics and so on. They have some of the same ef¬
fects as DDT does. There’s a very famous article
in Science by Charles Wurster at the Woods Flole
Oceanographic Institute, in which he points out
that as much as ten parts per billion of DDT will
reduce the oxygen productivity of phytoplank¬
ton by perhaps 50 percent. 6 In case you’re not
familiar, phytoplankton are the small plant cells
in the ocean that are the base of the food pyramid
in the ocean. And if you get as much as a hun¬
dred parts per billion, you may, depending on the
subspecies of phytoplankton, reduce it to 10 or
20 percent—someplace in that range—of the to¬
tal productivity that exists in the absence of DDT.
The phytoplankton in the ocean produces 65 to
70 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere. OK?
Flow much DDT do we have? Well, oh, there’s
enough DDT. DDT is showing up throughout the
world in one form or another.

And the famous example, of course, is the
penguins in Antarctica that are receiving it. Well,
all right, not an enormous amount, but the point
that they’re getting it is dangerous. You’re find¬
ing DDT is being concentrated in the pelagic
birds, for example, which is to say the ones that
are far removed from the coastlines. Maybe
enough, in fact, so that some of the concentra¬
tion is damaging the ability of the birds to sur¬
vive at all. And so it goes. Plus, the fact that if we
were able to stop even the manufacture of DDT
right now, there’s enough in the soil and the at¬
mosphere that the concentration would undoubt¬
edly increase. At this stage it’s almost impossible
to estimate what the consequences would be, but
it’s sure there are going to be some. The only ef¬
fect may possibly be ... .

The trouble with ecology is though extraor¬
dinarily complicated, it’s difficult to anticipate

RICHARD SILL

421

all the way. But, nonetheless, you can tell what
some of the possibilities are. One of them is that
it can result, as Paul Ehrlich had said in Ram¬
parts last fall sometime, in the destruction to
death, if you will, of the ocean. He didn’t happen
to draw the conclusion that 70 percent of the oxy¬
gen would no longer be available to higher verte¬
brate life or any other. And it’s interesting to no¬
tice that if you reduce the atmosphere to 30 per¬
cent, that no ordinary higher life form could sur¬
vive any more even at sea level. Where if you cut
it to five-eighths, you could . . . oh, it would be
equivalent to living at 14,000 feet, which can be
done. Some human species are even able to re¬
produce if they stay at such altitudes. Some of
the Indians in South America and the people in
Nepal, for example, certainly can do so, and Ti¬
bet. But you and I could not, probably.

In any event, this is one of the things that
we’re doing that can very easily damage the fun¬
damental life support system and is indeed doing
so. We don’t know quite how much. It might end
up by changing the ... by selectively encourag¬
ing certain types of phytoplankton to take over,
and they conceivably could produce more oxy¬
gen, but they probably won’t, at least on the ba¬
sis of what we know now.

Another thing we’re doing is the oil spills.
Now, when the oceanographic vessels are mak¬
ing studies, and they put out phytoplankton nets,
which are very, very fine-grain, almost a Millipore
in structure, they’re picking up oil all over the
world. And the estimates of the amount of oil
that are in the ocean now is that the actual mass
of oil that’s been spilled by Torrey Canyon disas¬
ters and what-not is now equal to the biomass in
the ocean itself, and this is also extraordinarily
deleterious. 7 And although people had not thought
until recently that oil after a little while was par¬
ticularly dangerous, it’s now recognized that even
after the volatile elements have evaporated, that
which is left also is highly dangerous to life.

So there are two extraordinarily important
things that we’re doing. The famous disaster, di¬
saster of the Aswan Dam in Egypt, is another one.
And if you want to be patriotic, boy, as I am, you

can certainly thank God the Russians beat us out
on that. They put the dam in the Nile. Of all the
insane things—it just drives me wild sometimes
to see the way we do things. But here is the Nile,
the fertile soil that has remained fertile since be¬
fore man’s recognition of the thing and has made
it possible for some integrity of civilization for
almost ten thousand years, I suppose, now, and
certainly five or six. And it’s done so by periodic
flooding. So what do the damn fools do but put a
dam up without the flooding. Guess what? They
have to use fertilizers. And who’s surprised? Well,
of course, the trouble with fertilizers is that they,
as usual, are not broad spectrum; they don’t pro¬
vide all the nutrients that you need to have. And
as a consequence, you run the soil out, which is
what we’re doing in this country with our use of
artificial fertilizers. But the incidental by-prod¬
uct of this is that the nutrients are no longer go¬
ing on into the Mediterranean; the result is that
the fisheries in the eastern Mediterranean almost
totally disappeared from things like . . . oh, I for¬
get the number, exactly. Well, it’s something like
250,000 tons of sardines or something of the sort
that they used to pick up there; they’re down to
around 90 tons. Why are they disappearing? Well,
the answer is that they’re disappearing because
the nutrients that the phytoplankton have to have
to live on are no longer there. And in California
there are thirty-eight major rivers, thirty-five of
which are now dammed, that are not reaching the
ocean. Throughout the world the supply of nutri¬
ents to the ocean is gradually being cut down by
the increasing use of dams. The effect of this, of
course, sooner or later over the whole world wide,
is to reduce the productivity of the phytoplank¬
ton, because they haven’t anything to work on.
So here we go again.

And the last thing is that the particulate mat¬
ter, some of which is cirrus clouds (well, it pro¬
duces nucleation for cirrus cloud formation in the
upper atmosphere), is increasing the reflectivity
of the atmosphere, so there’s less solar radiation
that’s reaching the surface of the earth. It’s com¬
pensating the greenhouse effect from carbon di¬
oxide, so that the earth is getting cooler rather

422

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

than wanner, which the greenhouse effect would
predict. But among other things, it’s also reduc¬
ing the insulation that you have to have for the
phytoplankton to produce oxygen.

There are four things all going on simulta¬
neously, all fundamentally aimed at the life sup¬
port system on the earth. In addition to that, pro¬
jections—for what they’re worth—say that in five
years one-half the vegetation in California will
be dead or dying. On the order of one-third of the
oxygen in the atmosphere is provided by the veg¬
etation on the earth.

So, why, I want to know, why is it that man
can’t ever achieve any compromise? Why is that
we always swing the pendulum as far as possible
in one direction or another? I wish I knew the
answer to this. The Greeks certainly were aware
of it. The striving for the golden mean couldn’t
have been pursued as intensively if it hadn’t been
that even in those days man was not inclined to
take a middle ground—be moderate in all things,
including being moderate, so to speak.

There are some interesting possibilities, and
I speculate as to what it may mean. But, for ex¬
ample, we know that the brain, among other
things, works—at least in detail—as a computer,
and as a binary computer with neurons either fir¬
ing or non-firing, as the case may be. It’s like a
switch, either open or closed. Is it conceivable
that our fundamental emotional response to things
is determined by one or at least a very few neu¬
rons? If that’s the case, then it wouldn’t be sur¬
prising that it’s extraordinarily difficult for people
naturally to take some intermediate ground, be¬
cause an intermediate ground involves a greater
spectral range of decomposition of information
than simply to yes or no. And so I’ve examined
this and tried to see if there’s any hints in my
own existence, and I find there is such a hint,
though it may only be a peculiarity of myself and
not others.

I have a very poor memory. This may strike
you as odd from the way I rattle off here, but the
truth is that arbitrary things I can’t remember. And
in the nature of my profession, usually if you re¬
member something, it’s probably wrong, anyway;

and if you do remember it correctly, the chances
are you shouldn’t, because you should think it
over fresh, because the chances are you’ll have a
new point of view, and it’ll come out better than
it was before. So use of memory, per se, is sort of
discouraged in my profession; at least it is by
people who think as I do. There are others, of
course, who once they memorize ....

In fact, it’s very interesting—I’ll get off on
that for a moment. Sam Goudsmit, one of the great
physicists of the century—candidate for the Nobel
prize and didn’t quite make it, but certainly dis¬
coverer of the electron spin—adopted this uni¬
versity as a second home. And he and I have been
on rather good terms for a long time, and we pub¬
lished some papers together. But in any event,
when he was here one time, he’d been editor of
the Physical Review for a long time, the bible of
physics, the unreadable green horror. And he was
saying by then he had known almost all the great
physicists in this century. He said they fall into
two categories: there is the group that strikes it
big while they’re young, and there is the group
that produces all their lives. He said the essential
characteristic of those that strike it big when
they’re young is perfect memory. And that group
essentially makes its contribution at the time it’s
learning a subject in the first place. [Wolfgang]
Pauli, for example, wrote the definitive article in
the Handbuch der Physik on theory of relativity
at the age of eighteen. And it’s still essentially
the definitive article on the thing, other than the
original one from Einstein, of course. And then
there have been further developments of a minor
degree, but this is the article.

Pauli was a man who had fundamentally per¬
fect memory. So, when he was working and try¬
ing to understand and grasping the thing in the
first place, then all the powers of his mind were
brought to bear, and he saw a new thing. Well,
once he got it done, why did he have to go back
and look at it? He could write anything he wanted
down from memory. So his contribution was fun¬
damental at that stage and thence forth. But there
are other people who have very poor memories,
and every time they hit a subject, they start all

RICHARD SILL

423

over again. And this group contributes even to
the same old subject all the rest of its life. So
there’s hope for me, because I have poor memory.
But, nonetheless, I have asked myself, specifi¬
cally, what would you expect under these circum¬
stances? And I find just what I would expect,
which is a very dangerous thing in physics, inci¬
dentally. If you find what you expect, the chances
are it’s coincidence.

But I don’t remember either-or things. You
have a choice of two possibilities; they’re entirely
arbitrary. And you find that one way works, and
the other way doesn’t work, perhaps, and get by.
Or you have a lot of switches that control your
apparatus, and you throw one up, and something
will happen, or you throw it down. Well, I go
away for a week’s vacation and come back; I can’t
remember whether it’s to go up or down to do
what I want it to. But if I have to go through a
sequence of three or four switches, then this in¬
volves an hypothesis: a larger number of neurons
working involves a larger amount of interconnec¬
tions in the brain; the result is more complicated,
and there’s greater likelihood that some of this
will be stored someplace, and you’ll pick it up.
So it’s a hypothesis; it can’t be taken very seri¬
ously, but maybe there’s some significance to it.
And, certainly, somebody has to figure out some
way so that people do not... or at least you un¬
derstand why it is, somehow, that the people tend
to take such extreme positions at all times. And
it may possibly be simply that the fundamental
emotions are governed by a very new part of the
brain that deals with essentially an either-or op¬
eration. For what it’s worth, if it’s true, it’s ex¬
traordinarily dangerous. Maybe the idea of mak¬
ing problems complex is the only hope we have,
because thereby a larger fraction of the brain will
be involved, and if that is the case, perhaps we’ll
be less likely to go to extremes.

Yes, yes. OK then.

There may well be other things that you have
in mind that don’t fit in your regular question
pattern; I don’t know.

Well, I think it would be nice sometime if we got
together, and you can continue, [laughter]

[laughter] Well, I digress too much, but it’s

fun.

Do you want a restriction on this tape?

No. Well, I might say one thing about this.
At the tail end you ask me, “Do I want a restric¬
tion on the tape?” and the answer is no. I do
strongly feel, and I don’t recall whether I said
this earlier or not, but I think you should have it
on the tape that this is a frying time, a time that
tries men’s souls and so on, and it’s a very criti¬
cal time, and it could very easily end up, I think,
with the destruction of American democracy as
such—not only the destruction of life on earth,
but it might go through this other process on the
way. But I think that the noble effort on your part
to restrict it, the more sensitive parts of the tape,
perhaps, or those who wish them restricted, is
desirable. But if it turns about that we end up
with something, in effect, like the—well, maybe
not quite the Hitler program—but something
where you have secret police, then you can’t. And
this does not mean that I have held back in any
question that you’ve asked. I wouldn’t intend to
do so. But I do feel that you .. . some other people,
who predict as I do, that there is at least a distinct
possibility of a military or industrial military take¬
over, a southern state takeover, in effect, of the
authority in the country, may possibly be holding
back just because of the recognition that your
tapes might be compromised by a night raid by
the Staat Polizei or something. 8 And it’s possible
in the years to come, when the rest of us have
gone to hell—where we probably should be
now—that whoever looks over these tapes should
be aware of the fact that some people who are
predicting that sort of thing may actually be hold¬
ing back. I am not, at least consciously. I would
not like to implicate anybody else, and to that
degree I would, but so far I haven’t had to. Your
questions haven’t compelled me to.

424

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

[laughter] OK.

One of the other things that occurs to me in
getting a playback at the tail end that is perhaps
important for futurity is that this is taped on the
order of eight-thirty to ten-thirty in the morning
of . . . what is it? Thursday?

Yes.

Thursday, June 18, 1970, new style.
[laughter]

Notes

1. The Annexation ( Anschluss) of Austria into the
German Reich occurred in March 1938. After protests
from Britain and France at the Munich conference in
September, Adolf Hitler was permitted to take the
Sudetenland, roughly 16,000 square miles covering
nearly one- third of Czechoslovakia.

2. In 1950 Helen Gahagan Douglas and Richard M.
Nixon fought a vicious battle in California for an open
seat in the U.S. Senate. Nixon claimed Douglas had
communist tendencies. He won the election by roughly
a ten percent margin.

3. Schaller, George B. The Year of the Gorilla. Chi¬
cago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.

4. Syngman Rhee was elected the first president of
South Korea in 1948. After a national uprising in 1960,
he was forced to resign.

5. Under Nevada’s Freeport Law, materials or goods
can be stored in the state, for later shipment, without
taxation.

6. Charles F. Wurster, Jr. “DDT Reduces Photosyn¬
thesis by Marine Phytoplankton.” Science 159.3822
(1968): 1474-75.

7. On March 18,1967, the Torrey Canyon ran aground
off Lands End in England. Approximately 850,000-
875,000 barrels of oil were dumped into the sea.

8. The German State Police.

Anthony Springer

June 2, 1970

Now, just for the record, if you ’ll say your name,
your residence, and your position. You don’t need
to fool with the microphone—it picks you up real
well.

Right. My name is Major Anthony Springer.
I’m the deputy professor of military science here
at the University of Nevada, Reno.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Well, perhaps I’m a very obvious personal¬
ity, being a soldier, and much of the focus at
Governor’s Day was directed towards our por¬
tion of the ceremony or activity.

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to go into Cambodia with troops?

I would have to preface by saying that I’m
not privy to the vast amount of information that
he has, and therefore I can only speculate. As an
army officer who has spent two tours in Vietnam,

one as a rifle company commander who has
fought near the Cambodian border, I can say with¬
out equivocation that it was most frustrating to
be involved in a firefight and have to halt at a
certain line or a certain buffer zone which marked
Cambodia. We knew at that time (and this is 1967)
that there was a very large cache of enemy arms
and equipment, within spitting distance almost,
across the Vietnamese-Cambodian border.

I expect the president feels that since we must
withdraw from Vietnam, and the pressure at home
is such that it’s not a matter of “if’ anymore but
“when,” that he would like to get out as fast as he
can, but, concurrently, as gracefully as he can.
He doesn’t want to feel that we are running with
our tails between our legs. If, for instance, he can
in some sort of a blitzkrieg way destroy the
enemy’s ability to wage war effectively, based
on this tremendous staging area in Cambodia, then
this probably was his motive.

(I would say parenthetically that I think even
though we were successful in destroying the bulk
of the staging area in Cambodia, that in due
course—without trying to sound pessimistic—
this could all be built up again if the Vietnamese,
like ourselves, are also going to withdraw. Hope-

426

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

fully, because they’re going to remain behind us
in Vietnam, in Cambodia, they will be able to
obviate this buildup again.)

Yes. Yes. In what way do you think the Cambodia
decision was related to what happened next on
our campus?

When you say “what happened next,” are you
referring to Governor’s Day?

Well, all the things that really happened.

That very active week.

Yes.

I would say that it had a large bearing on the
activities of Governor’s Day week. I would say,
also, the unfortunate killing of the four students
at Kent State University had added equal fire to
the activity of the week. Certainly, the vast ma¬
jority of American students that I have come into
contact with ... or let me be even more general:
the vast majority of young people, say, twenty-
five years old and younger, are extremely frus¬
trated with the war. Now, this is not to say that
older people aren’t, too, but for the sake of dis¬
cussion, I’ll put the people over twenty-five as
being of a more conservative bent, of a more stoic
bent, in that they—while not necessarily approv¬
ing war in Vietnam—are staying mute and hop¬
ing for the best as they watch the president and
his administration operate.

These younger students, or younger people,
feel that our national security is in no way at stake.
At least, if they accept the domino theory, they
don’t see that the national security of the United
States is immediately at stake, even though Viet¬
nam may fall and possibly after certain other
Southeast Asia countries. Therefore, they cannot
understand why we insist on shedding so much
blood and, I expect, spend so much treasure in a
conflict that has questionable security value to
us and, while at the same time, we’re so tremen¬
dously besieged with domestic problems at home.

(I’m not sure if I answered that.) Let’s put it this
way, that’s certainly a major consideration of why
there was great unrest at the Cambodian decision.

Yes, yes. What was your reaction to the events in
other parts of the country similarly related to the
Cambodia decision ?

Well, one is immediately aware of the reac¬
tion on the campuses, I would say, as a very no¬
ticeable group. Like most Americans, I’m pretty
much oriented towards the evening television
news programs and the major dailies and the prin¬
cipal weeklies. And one was immediately aware
that the decision to go into Cambodia had a dev¬
astating impact on campuses. When I say “a dev¬
astating impact,” I mean many people, closer to
the center, away from the radical trend, became
vocal and extremely distraught at the presiden¬
tial decision.

Certainly, there were equal manifestations to
the other extreme—if we dare to use the word
“extreme”—by, oh, we’ll say our very patriotic
groups like the Daughters of the American Revo¬
lution, perhaps, the American Legion, who, as
they saw this dissent and turbulence on the cam¬
puses, would go to the other side. The demon¬
stration in New York City one or two weeks ago
was a reaction, in which the so-called hard hats—
that is to say, the construction workers, blue col¬
lar workers—a hundred thousand strong, dem¬
onstrated in downtown New York City to show
support of the president.

The overall observation as to what was the
reaction to the decision to go into Cambodia was
a definite polarization, I believe, regardless of
one’s sympathy on whether we should have ever
got there in the first place—that’s irrelevant at
the moment. But the decision to go into Cambo¬
dia seemed to cut people pretty much across the
middle. There were those who said, “Let’s stick
with the present decision. Let’s ride this thing
through. Let’s not be the first generation to see a
defeat for the United States people.” And there
was the other extreme, or the other group, which
became considerably larger, I believe, after the

ANTHONY SPRINGER

All

Cambodia decision: “We should never have been
in Vietnam, anyway. The fact that we’re escalat¬
ing into Cambodia just compounds the problem,
and we must do what we can to put a halt to the
situation.”

Yes. Turning now to the Governor’s Day activi¬
ties here on our campus: what did you think of
the arrangements made for the observance of
Governor’s Day?

Well, the arrangements were somewhat en¬
compassing, as you know. They included an in¬
formal discussion of university affairs in Presi¬
dent Miller’s office at ten o’clock, a reception in
Jot Travis Union thereafter, and a ceremony
which was oriented primarily towards the ROTC
at Mackay Stadium at eleven o’clock. In the past,
Governor’s Day has had pretty much a military
ring to it. That is to say, the average student—
who is not in the ROTC or who has no particular
knowledge of the puipose of Governor’s Day, for
instance—tends to think that Governor’s Day is
strictly an ROTC-sponsored show.

We were conscious of this when Colonel Hill
and I arrived at the university last October 1969.
We said, “Governor’s Day has a very fine ring to
it and shouldn’t be confused with ROTC Day.” I
think if the governor is going to come to the uni¬
versity once a year, which is all he does do, that
it should be a truly university-sponsored affair.
And even though that may be the intent, that cer¬
tainly is not the impression that the average stu¬
dent has with Governor’s Day. So, whereas in
the past we pretty much did all the planning for
Governor’s Day and did all the programming for
Governor’s Day, this year it was done by Presi¬
dent Miller and his office, although we were the
executive agency that did some of the ground¬
work for him.

Now, I think, the problem on Governor’s
Day—that is to say, the demonstration at the sta¬
dium—was a result then because, number one,
there was great disapproval and heartache over
the decision on Cambodia; there was equally dis¬
traught feeling about those that were killed at

Kent State; and there was a general frustration of
course that the youth of America—most of whom
are not at voting age, we’ll say, on the campuses—
were not being heard as a bloc. They saw this
obvious manifestation of the establishment on pa¬
rade, namely the ROTC Cadet Corps on
Governor’s Day, and they felt that this was the
object to strike at to show their disapproval. There
can be no doubt that the ROTC is a symbol of the
establishment; it’s a symbol of tradition; it’s a
symbol of the status quo; it smacks of reaction.
And although we, as the military, are simply the
instruments of national policy—that is to say, the
military instrument of the government—and do
not make the decisions, we nevertheless are the
closest thing to President Nixon’s administration
on the University of Nevada campus.

Yes. What was your reaction to the demonstra¬
tion ?

I frankly thought it was a rather untidy-look¬
ing group. I may be a little bit conservative in my
attitudes on dress and appearance. I thought they
were certainly physically unattractive as a group;
however, I thought their behavior was quite good.
That is to say, they walked into the stadium
grounds some four or five hundred strong, and I
was concerned as to what their action would be—
whether they were going to form one line and
charge, whether they were going to form a pha¬
lanx, or just what. But it turns out they walked
around the track of the stadium twice and then
filed into the stands. It was quite orderly. There
was a minimum of profanity. There was a mini¬
mum of screaming during the processional.

I do feel that there was a very active leader¬
ship as a hard core that was directing activity there
and that that hard-core leadership was unfortu¬
nately divided between a rather conservative el¬
ement of professors or administration person¬
nel—I tend to think primarily professors. On the
one hand, you had some that were trying to con¬
trol the group, and then there were other profes¬
sors—at least, one that I recall quite clearly—
who was obviously trying to agitate, if not for

428

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

violence, whatever he could achieve just short of
violence.

After they paraded into the stands behind the
regular audience group, they began to heckle a
bit, although I thought President Miller quite elo¬
quently resolved the problem. He stood up, faced
about, said, “Ladies and gentlemen, we have
given you your opportunity today to voice dis¬
sent, and this was done at the Manzanita Bowl.
We condescend,” or some word to that effect, “to
let you come up here and demonstrate at the sta¬
dium. You have demonstrated for X number of
minutes, and now it is our turn.” Or if he didn’t
identify himself, he said, “It is their turn,” mean¬
ing of course the Cadet Coips, which was to in¬
clude a presentation of awards to some outstand¬
ing cadets and was to follow with a traditional
military passing in review.

Now, President Miller pretty well controlled
the situation, I thought, although there was some
heckling. What disturbed me, though, as the cer¬
emony dragged on—and it was fairly lengthy—
was that a number of the radicals (I will call them)
moved out onto the main field just a stone’s throw
from the Cadet Corps, which was on parade.
There had already been a sizable ... I won’t say
sizable, but I would say maybe twenty-five or
thirty that had originally set themselves out there,
while the vast majority had moved near the stands;
and through gestures, black power salutes, cer¬
tain behavior, they seemed to incite others to come
out and join them.

What was most noticeable to me was that
there was a professor by the name of Adamian
who led a group out onto the field. And this is
where I really became anxious, because at that
point in time the drill team, who had fixed bayo¬
nets, were about to parade. And I knew that the
commander, while not trying to hurt anybody, was
set on performing well. He had trained his people
hard. He had a rather impressive audience, in¬
cluding the governor, the adjutant general, the
mayor of Reno—a number of distinguished
people—and he just wanted to do his performance
well. And there was quite a bit of goading. For¬
tunately, nobody was stuck, nobody was hurt, and
it worked out OK.

One very bad taste of the whole affair . . . and
what I’ve said so far really isn’t what I would
consider a bad situation when one accepts the
problems in America today. If there had to be a
demonstration, I suppose, as demonstrations go,
it was a good one. It was a relatively harmless
one. But one of our cadets was killed in Vietnam,
oh, a year or two ago, I expect. And his parents
had dedicated an award, a scholarship, or a prize
of five hundred dollars to an outstanding cadet
who demonstrated the attributes of citizenship,
responsibility, leadership, and the usual things
that we covet in the profession of soldiering. And
as he was being introduced to present the award
to the cadet recipient this year, one of the stu¬
dents, one of the dissenters, chose to take that
occasion to play taps, which one could argue was
done in good faith. But I gather it sort of wasn’t
accepted as that, and I thought it was a terrible
example of rudeness and bad taste. And certainly
there was nobody in that audience, whether it be
a cadet or a cadet’s parent or a single visitor, who
in my opinion enjoyed the prospect of war or a
liberty cease war. And in that respect we’re on
the same wavelength with those in the stands. So
it was bad taste in my opinion, because it seemed
to isolate us from them in that we maybe didn’t
feel quite so sensitive to the problems of death in
Vietnam, which of course is not true.

Yes. What do you think was the most effective part
of the demonstrations and the Governor's Day
observance?

You mean, if I were a dissident, and I wanted
to put my best foot forward and be effective, what
is the best show? I thought the best show was the
orderly processional around the track, with mini¬
mum profanity, minimum noise. And simply be¬
cause it was a sizable group, that was impres¬
sive. I haven’t heard what the count is; I would
say five or six hundred. Five or six hundred, I
think, is a pretty good number. But they neutral¬
ized themselves, and they nullified their good by,
one, suggesting that those who disagreed with
them—namely, we’ll say the ROTC cadets and
the audience there—did not share the same goals

ANTHONY SPRINGER

429

of peace and world brotherhood (an erroneous
assumption), and number two, by showing ex¬
tremely bad taste within a civilized society.

And what about the Governor’s Day obsetyance ?
What do you feel was the most effective part of
that?

You mean on balance? In other words, in¬
cluding the demonstration and everything?

Yes. Well, the obsetyance as opposed to the dem¬
onstration.

I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re
saying. When you say “observance,” you
mean ....

Well, or ceremony ....

How did the ceremony go?

Yes. Yes. The best part of the ceremony: what you
felt was the most effective part of that.

I certainly think acknowledging the outstand¬
ing cadets and awarding them publicly makes
them happy and their families happy. Any public
recognition is a highlight. Secondly, as a military
man, I think the ceremony, the parade, is very
impressive—a tradition that doesn’t necessarily
smack of war mongering. It’s strictly a parade
ground affair. And it’s exciting, it’s fun, and like
all parades on Fourth of July or whatever, it’s a
part of our tradition. And I think the band music
and the passing in review and the basic proce¬
dures on the parade field were certainly a high¬
light, also.

Good. What do you think should have been the
reaction of the various groups involved—the
ROTC, the demonstrators, and the university
administration—to the conflict that developed
there at the field?

I think that it would have been best had the
university anticipated that this group would move

from Manzanita Bowl to Mackay Stadium. They
did not anticipate it, or at least chose not to dis¬
cuss the matter. So I think it was judicious, cer¬
tainly practical, for the president and those of us
in the Military Science Department who were
there to try to stop them—if that were the deci¬
sion—to let it go on, to let them demonstrate. I
don’t think we could have turned them back. I
think that they felt that they were overwhelming
in number, and it was just sensible to let them
demonstrate.

It was essential to us that we not provoke an
incident. First of all, whenever you have an inci¬
dent depicted in the press, you always run the
risk of incorrect reportage. I didn’t want that risk,
even though maybe we didn’t provoke it. But the
fact that they arrived at the stadium and the fact
that there would have been a contest would sug¬
gest that somebody from the ROTC or who had
already been in the stadium would have tried,
perhaps, to disrupt or to prevent the demonstra¬
tion from taking place. And that was publicity
that we could not afford, nor did we choose to
take. I think the actual evolution of what did tran¬
spire on that day was the best possible situation.

I personally am sorry that they would iden¬
tify the ROTC as the source of their disdain.
Whether or not one approves of the war in Viet¬
nam as a single issue does not automatically mean
that one disapproves of a military establishment
in a country that is identified as a world power.
We are a world power. The majority of Ameri¬
can people, I believe, today—if the Gallup poll
were to run this question—would say, “Yes, we
do want the United States to be a world power.
And we do realize that after all diplomacy has
been exhausted, the trump card that is going to
back up your diplomatic position, your interna¬
tional affairs, is a military strength—an army, a
navy, an air force.” As uncivilized as that might
sound, this is a fact of life. Where are we going
to get these people? Where are we going to get
the officers to man our services? We get them
from West Point, we can get them from OCS, or
we can get them from ROTC. Personally, I be¬
lieve that the ROTC is the most democratic
source; it gives you the best all-around cross-sec-

430

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

tion of America; it is the most in-tune group; and
these young men that come in and do their two
years in the army, navy, and air force, and then
go on to the civilian endeavors, are certainly not
going to hurt the army. On the contrary, they’re
going to help it, and it’s not going to hurt them,
and they’re going to satisfy an extremely impor¬
tant function in America in really ensuring a good
national defense. So people are mixing apples and
oranges incorrectly. You disapprove of the war
in Vietnam, true, but I don’t think you disapprove
of a military. And we need that military, and the
best way of getting a good officer corps, in my
opinion, is through the ROTC.

Yes. What was your reaction to the violence that
followed Governor’s Day—the fire bombing?

Well, it was a very memorable occasion.
[laughter]

I know that Colonel Hill, our professor of
military science, coincidentally that evening (it
was a Wednesday) spent a great deal of time at¬
tending a student senate conference at Jot Travis
Union and then engaged in a very long and inter¬
esting dialog on world affairs and certainly the
situation in Cambodia until about three o’clock
in the morning. And he was still at Jot Travis at
that time when he got the word.

At that time he, with Gunter Hiller—which
is a rather interesting pair—went up to Hartman
Hall to view the damages. And as it turned out,
of course, one office had been pretty well gutted,
but it wasn’t too serious. To answer your ques¬
tion: what do I think of it? I think it’s deplorable.
I think it only expands the bipolarization between
the more extreme left and an extreme right group.
Whenever a group—such as, we’ll say, campus
radical dissidents who happen to disapprove of
war in Vietnam—get involved in something that
deals with the destruction of property, they run
the risk of alienating many would-be allies and,
of course, to alienate even more those that radi¬
cally or gravely disagree with them, anyway.

There is no proof that the extreme left did
this. A radical student might say to me, “I think
perhaps somebody from the extreme right did it
just to make us look bad.” That’s a possibility.
The point is: whoever did it, it only offends most
Americans, and it’s not going to advance any
cause. Most Americans really and truly like to
see change through the democratic process, re¬
gardless, I believe, of our violent history as a na¬
tion. In 1970 the vast majority want to see change
by democratic processes.

What category of participant in these affairs —
the students, faculty, or outsiders—do you think
was most important in stirring up the violence
that occurred?

When you say “violence,” are you talking
about violence nationally speaking or just here?

No, 1 mean here.

There really wasn’t any violence that I ob¬
served, except the fire bombing. And there’s no
proof that anybody from the university or any¬
body connected with the university did the fire
bombing. I would say, if it could be proven that it
was done by people associated with this univer¬
sity, I would speculate that it would be by stu¬
dents, the more radical, militant students. But,
by and large, I did not see any violence. I would
say, “Who are the agitators?” might be closer to
the mark: “Who were trying to cause some sort
of turmoil, some sort of a situation whereby they
could get the attention of the maximum number
of people?” I mean, that was the goal: “We must
get the attention of the president. We must get
the attention of the establishment. We must get
the attention of those that don’t see things our
way at the University of Nevada. How can we do
it? We don’t do it by sending letters through the
mail; we don’t do it from a teacher’s podium. We
do it through some sort of an exciting, dramatic
demonstration.”

I have no real knowledge, nor was I that much
of an observer, to detect. I would say, certainly,

ANTHONY SPRINGER

431

there’s a good nucleus of students ... at this cam¬
pus I would say it’s a small nucleus—perhaps
ten—who spend a great deal of time, maybe more
time than they do on their studies, on agitating
towards social reform and towards change of for¬
eign policy, towards radical changes in almost
every sphere in America. Then there is a small
group, also, of faculty. I haven’t seen any admin¬
istration people, haven’t seen any staff people,
but I would say faculty. There are two or three
that I know who are active in stimulating demon¬
strations. I don’t think any one of them that I know
are stimulating revolution or violence. Let me
rephrase that. I don’t know of any of the faculty
that I know who are stimulating violent revolu¬
tion. I would say, on balance, the strongest lead¬
ers are the faculty leaders. Because they are older,
because they agree with the vast majority of radi¬
cal students’ thinking, they’re looked at as wise
sages in the movement. So if I were to say what
individual group was most important or most ef¬
fective, I would say probably that that small
nucleus of faculty that support demonstrations
and this sort of activity.

Do you think the outsiders are important?

I would say that a good, organized outside
group could be devastating. I was told that there
were some agitators, or some so-called profes¬
sional agitators, that were here from University
of Berkeley, I think, arriving Thursday or Friday
of Governor’s Day week. At any rate, they ar¬
rived after schools in California had been closed
by the governor. They didn’t make money, as far
as I could tell, because the radical leadership is
fairly small here, and the so-called “left-wingers”
at the University of Nevada are not nearly so left
as we find west of the Sierras. So I think you’re
not going to find an anarchistic, violence-deter¬
mined radical in any consequential numbers at
the University of Nevada. So even if they were
effective, they were effective with a small audi¬
ence, and there were enough of the so-called
moderate types to prevent any effective violent
activity.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence or in cooling off the
situation that developed after the bombing?

Well, the important thing, of course, is not to
counteract. Again, we don’t know who commit¬
ted the violence, so we didn’t know where to
strike out. But let’s say we, in the Military De¬
partment, knew that two or three students on the
university campus peipetrated this act. It would
be patently stupid for us to go after them physi¬
cally or to destroy, we’ll say, a structure where
they lived as an example. It would be equally bad
to get engaged in a diatribe of insulting, abusive,
inational conversation.

The best situation in a case of violence is for
somebody who is respected to try to cool things
down, as a representative of all factions if pos¬
sible. This is where a president of a university
can be most effective, I believe, if he’s well-re¬
garded—President Miller certainly fits that mold
here—and tty to prevent it from happening again
through speaking to all elements: first of all, to
those who did it, “Don’t do it again”; to those
that were the recipients of the violence or das¬
tardly deed, “Don’t take revenge.” And, of course,
if you can identify who did the wrong deeds, who
did (we’ll say) blow up Hartman Hall or tty to
blow up Hartman Hall or destroy it in some way—
burn it—then they should be brought to justice,
and they should be prosecuted vigorously and
fairly.

How do you think events on campus affect the
university’s image, so-called, with outsiders?

I think that the events on campus, the dissen¬
sion or demonstration-type events on campus—
they’re basically healthy in themselves, because
it shows that somebody disapproves—that he’s
not letting it smolder within him, that he’s ex¬
pressing himself—and it creates a forum for dia¬
log and exchange of ideas, which keeps people
from getting too hot under the collar. It does not
have that same soothing effect on the outsider.

432

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

The outsider, especially in this community,
as far as I can discern, is basically conservative.
He’s basically traditional. He’s very patriotic. And
the average Renoite, for instance, perhaps tends
to oversimplify, and he sees that a student is pro¬
testing the war in Vietnam. Even after the presi¬
dent says, “We’re getting out,” the student is still
protesting the war in Vietnam. The average
Renoite says, “Well, this person is a Communist,”
or “This person is lending comfort to the enemy
as a minimum,” or what’s more, “This person is
stupid and ultra-idealistic,” and what’s more, “He
just is a pain in the neck.” The same is observed
from the outside, we’ll say. Besides, I believe the
purpose of a university is to get an education, not
as a political forum. And any time the political
dialog takes precedence over learning prescribed
subjects through the class structure and whatever,
then the university is not fulfilling its mission.

What can the university do to help in focusing
public opinion?

Well, I think one of the best things that the
university can do is to encourage local civic
groups, social fraternities, any number of collec¬
tions of people who meet regularly, to invite stu¬
dents of all persuasions, teachers, and adminis¬
trators to talk to them, talk to their groups, to open
up dialogue, so there’s a better understanding. I
personally think that the average student who is—
we’ll call him “radical”—is not necessarily a bad
American, is not necessarily an anarchist, is not
necessarily irresponsible. Many of them, I con¬
fess, are. But the alternative to not getting together
and exchanging ideas is to form opinions of one
another that become so intransigent that over the
years mythology may even grow, and you find
that both sides are cast in caricature. They’re
“overs” (over to the left, over to the right) and
this can only lead to disaster. So anything the
university can do—through press releases, open
houses here, trying to get invitations into local
homes and offices and conferences—would have,
I think, a very, very good effect in at least bridg¬

ing the communication gap. And that would be,
and I think it is, the principal public relations ac¬
tivity of the university.

Do you think issues of academic freedom are in¬
volved in participating in a demonstration ?

That’s a good question, and I frankly don’t
feel qualified to answer it. My opinion is that the
university should be free to allow all people to
express their opinions, to write their opinions, to
talk their opinions, to demonstrate. I would take
the rather conservative modifier, however, by
saying this: that you may not say or write any¬
thing that, one, is obscene to the general consen¬
sus of the public, whatever that is, but I think it’s
fairly clear. Second, you may not say or do any¬
thing which will prevent me from exercising my
normal activities on campus: you can’t block the
street for me, you can’t keep me from going to
class. And the teacher should be there, because
that’s one of the primary activities—that’s his
contract—to be there to teach on scheduled ap¬
pointments. Third, you should not say or do any¬
thing which would, in my opinion, permit the vio¬
lent overthrow of the government. I think this
should be guarded against. Now, beyond that,
you’re free to do anything you darn well please.

I personally do believe that the puipose of
the university is to get educated. Now, granted,
that the teacher will learn from the student, and
there should be exchange of ideas, primarily the
teacher should be a dispenser. That’s why the stu¬
dent goes to school. Now, as an extracurricular . . .
if they—student, faculty, administrator alike—
want to get active at the student bowl or the sta¬
dium or somewhere else, if they want to engage
in these extracurriculars, that’s fine. But when it
comes time for them to teach or to be in class or
to be at the typewriters or to tend the books in the
library or whatever the job is, then they better be
there. Otherwise, in my opinion, they’re violat¬
ing the puipose of the university, and they’re
wasting taxpayers’ money, and they’re wasting
some students’ time.

ANTHONY SPRINGER

433

How do you think students and faculty can be
effective politically, or should they attempt to in¬
fluence governmental policy?

I think that a student and a faculty member
has just as much right to engage in political dis¬
cussion and activity within the frameworks of
decency and safety and good order as anyone else
in America. I believe that there’s a great tempta¬
tion for the students, generally, in coalition with
certain faculty members, to become identified as
a bloc, because they’re all approximate to each
other. It’s just like in the military—we have bat¬
talions. Well, you have what amounts to battal¬
ions of students. You have a tremendous group. I
do not think that they should make that the pri¬
mary goal in life, if they choose to remain on the
books as a teacher or as a student. But just like
we have hobbies in America and avocations,
there’s no reason why somebody can’t be very
active in this.

I draw this line: that whatever the avocation
or whatever the interest or whatever the passion,
say, political affairs, may be, the classroom may
never be used as a pulpit—never—unless 100
percent of the students vote that that’s what they
want to hear. And I doubt if they’re ever in that
situation. A student goes to class to learn about a
certain subject. It’s mentioned in the catalog;
that’s the contract; that’s what he expects. If he
goes there, and he receives less than a good per¬
formance or a good effort by the teacher, then
he’s being cheated. If that student feels strongly
about molding public opinion in certain areas,
then he will say, “Ladies and gentlemen, I will be
available at Manzanita Bowl at four o’clock this
afternoon. I have something very important to say.
I think you ought to hear it. I urgently request
that you come, without any string attached, of
course.” And that’s something else again. But,
definitely, the classroom should not be a forum.

Where do you think the peace movement in this
area is headed?

Well, I hope that the peace movement will
lead to gradual world peace. I suppose that would

be a good, simple answer. If the peace movement
can create peace and tranquility in the world,
that’s wonderful. I think everybody should work
for peace. I think it’s a basic fact of life, or a ba¬
sic goal of life, that we could live in brotherhood
with all people of good . . . “Peace on earth, good¬
will towards men” is as true today as it ever was.
Unfortunately, it’s not practiced fully.

My fear in the so-called peace movement as
you mean it, namely the pacifists, those that do
not want to become involved in any sort of a con¬
flict, is that there will be .... As long as we are a
national power—I think we still are (that’s a fact,
we are a national power)—and as long as we wish
to remain one (that’s an assumption), and as long
as the communists believe that theirs is the best
form of economics and life in the world and would
like to convert the world to it, then I believe that
it will only make them bolder and maybe move a
little bit more rapidly towards the demise of the
United States, if they feel there is a large and
growing peace movement in America. Regard¬
less of their sophisticated and cosmopolitan ap¬
proach, the communists would like to convert the
world to it, hopefully by peaceful means, but nev¬
ertheless they really believe it’s good for all men,
and that it is inevitable.

What I’m saying, I suppose, is that we all
want peace, but we want peace in a practical way.
A majority of us, I believe, don’t want peace at
the expense of being communist or at the expense
of having something forced down our throats. We
could have peace tomorrow. We could just dis¬
arm completely. We want peace, we as Ameri¬
cans, within a system that allows for liberty and
freedom and the things that we have in America.
And we do not believe today that by a totally paci-
fistic attitude we can ensure the safety of America.

So I say I think the peace movement, if it
gets too big, is potentially a very dangerous thing
in America.

You have other comments you’d like to make
about this whole situation?

The only general comment that comes to
mind is: what is the role of the student in a uni-

434

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

versity? At the risk of oversimplifying, I would
say that there are four basic groups on the cam¬
pus: there is the president and his administration;
there is the faculty; there is the students; and there
is the Board of Regents, who represent presum¬
ably the people of the state of Nevada. The Board
of Regents and the vast majority of the constitu¬
ency, in my opinion, do believe that they should—
as a majority—dictate pretty much what goes on
at the university, as a democratic thing.

They put trust in the administration to ex¬
ecute these programs. Programs are a bit tradi¬
tional in that we believe in classrooms, and we
believe in dispensing knowledge and the usual
things that have been associated with universi¬
ties in the United States. Thirdly, we have a fac¬
ulty who are hired to impart the knowledge, and,
fourthly, we have the student.

If there is to be change in the university—for
instance, the course material, manner of presen¬
tation, the role of the student in classes—how do
you get this change? You get this change by some¬
body—the student, the faculty, the administra¬
tor, or the regents—requesting change, and you
work through a usual process to get change. Let’s
say that a student wishes to have liquor on cam¬
pus: he works through the normal chain of the
organization to effect this change. Let’s say the
regents veto it. What does the student do? The
student complies; or the student breaks the law
and does something and takes the chance of get¬
ting expelled and going to jail; or does he leave
the university? And, frankly, I see nothing in be¬
tween. I don’t want to be quite so cut and dried.
They can still demonstrate or do other things and
so forth.

I believe that the student must recognize his
place. Because he is a majority definitely does
not mean he has a majority vote on the university
campus. A man who is eighteen or nineteen years
old, in my opinion, is not capable. He may think
he is, but he’s not. And I think once we accept
the fact the majority rules on the campus, this
will be absolutely disastrous on institutions. Stu¬
dents are a majority, but they are not the decid¬
ers. They can try for change, and a regent, a uni¬

versity president, would be foolish not to listen
to the winds of request, but they cannot be in¬
timidated by it.

And the students should know this. And the
students will cause many changes just by group¬
ing together and voicing opinions. That’s quite
potent. And they can strike, too, if they want to,
in my opinion, provided they don’t strike when
it’s time to go to class, or they don’t interrupt the
process.

That’s very good.

Louis S. Test

May 29, 1970

So just for the record, if you’ll say your name,
your residence, and what your major and class
are.

I'm Louie Test, and I'm from Reno, Nevada.
I'm majoring in political science, hopefully go¬
ing into pre-law.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

I would imagine it was because I was in the
senate during the time that all the crises arose—
I guess it’d be the best way to put it. And I think
that I have a pretty good vantage point on both
sides to see just exactly what was happening.

Yes. What was your reaction to President Nixon’s
decision to move troops into Cambodia ?

When I first heard it, I was kind of skeptical
on the whole situation. And then when he had
his news interview (I think it was two days
later . . . well, it was just before the moratorium)
I thought he explained it very well, and militarily
I could see the logic behind it, as far as his mov¬

ing into Cambodia. And I can see where it would
be necessary to clear out the sanctuaries that they
do have over in Cambodia to protect (more or
less) the American troops when they are leaving
Vietnam. So to me it did make sense.

Yes. In what way do you think the Cambodia de¬
cision was related to what happened next on our
campus?

I think what happened on our campus started
back when Dr. [Harry] Edwards gave his speech.
I think this was the first time that the students on
the left (more or less) actually got involved, and
they really wanted to get something done. I think
he stimulated them. And then things just built
from here, from the USA, with the black-white
conferences that they had here until it finally got
to the Cambodian incident, and then it gave ev¬
erybody something to rally around—not only the
blacks, but also the left. And they had something
to work around, and I think this had a great deal
to do with it as kind of a rallying point. And then,
of course, Governor’s Day followed right after
this, which followed the Kent incident. Every¬
thing just kind of came together all at once. I think
this is one of the big problems that we had.

436

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Yes. What was your reaction to the events in other
parts of the country related to the Cambodian
incident?

I think that there was a lot of overreaction on
the part of a lot of people. But I think this, again,
is tied in directly with the Kent incident, and I
think people—at least the people on the left—
are finally starting to realize that they aren’t go¬
ing to get changes done violently. I think they
found out that the hu ge majority of the people in
the United States aren’t going to stand for it. I
think this was seen in the incidents that happened
over in Fresno, where the people came in, and
they just said, “No, you aren’t going to burn down
the administration,” and where the aggie people
over there at Fresno also protected the library.

The demonstration over in New York of a
hundred and fifty thousand people: it’s showing
that the people, the American people, aren’t go¬
ing to put up with violence anymore, and this isn’t
a means of getting change. I think one of the main
things that came out of the Cambodian incident,
and came out of the disruptions that came across
the nation, was the fact that people on both sides
are realizing that they can’t go outside the sys¬
tem, because all they’re going to do is antago¬
nize more people, and they aren’t going to get
anything done. So they’re going to have to work
within the system.

Turning now to the Governor’s Day activities
here: what did you think of the arrangements for
the observances?

Well, being in ROTC, I had a real good op¬
portunity to see the arrangements that were made
on the other side, as far as getting everything
ready. And there was a lot of preparation put into
Governor’s Day to make sure that it was a suc¬
cess. There was a lot of changes, as far as having
the people interviewed talk to the governor and
things along these lines, having this coffee hour,
and a few things like this where they got to talk
to these people. I think this makes a difference in
understanding and communications. So as far as
that side, I think it was very well organized.

Now, on the other side, I think they got a late
start. And the people that were organizing it had
good intentions at the beginning, as far as they
wanted an orderly display of their disagreement
with the Cambodian incident and Vietnam. Well,
once they got out there on the field, I think some
of them just got earned away. And the leaders,
from what I could see, couldn’t control them, the
people out on the field. It just almost got to the
point to where it was a mob, and there was no¬
body really in control. I think this was not part of
poor planning, but just over-enthusiasm on the
part of a lot of people. And I think a lot of people
just got too excited too quickly, and, consequently,
they couldn’t control them. But I think this, again,
is a part of quick planning, rather than overall
planning, on their part.

So you felt it was necessary for you to partici¬
pate in part of the observances.

Yes. Yes.

What did you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration?

I think one of the most effective was the last
day on Friday, when they did have the memorial
service. I think everybody at this point had come
to the decision that they have to listen to the other
person’s side, and that they can’t just close their
minds to things. They have to more or less ride
the fence, in a sense, to understand each side of
the story. And I think this was demonstrated at
the moratorium, because everybody was there.
Some people didn’t agree with it; some people
did. But yet there weren’t any disturbances:
people weren’t talking, people weren’t laughing,
and things along these lines. And I think this is
where everybody more or less came together to a
certain extent and respected the other people’s
rights and the other people’s freedoms. And I
think this was the most impressive part to me. I
was a little bit worried there for a few minutes
when I saw the Sundowners and the aggies come
down there, but they restrained themselves, and

LOUIS S. TEST

437

they let the other people talk, and I thought it was
really good. I think this was the most effective.

On Governor’s Day, again, what do you think
should have been the reaction of the ROTC and
the demonstrators and the university administra¬
tion to what developed there ?

Oh, boy, that’s a good question. They’d made
an agreement with President Miller when they
first went down there that he would allow them
to march around the track and display their griev¬
ance toward the war in Vietnam and Cambodia.
And this to me was all right. I mean, they have a
right to display their disagreement with the situ¬
ation, so I didn’t mind that. But when they got up
in the stands, they stalled catcalling, and they hied
to disrupt the whole ceremony. And to me this is
infringing as much on the rights of the people
who were trying to put on the programs as any¬
thing else. And to me it’s almost defeating their
purpose as far as freedoms. We’ve talked about
their rights and freedoms—I think they just com¬
pletely reversed the situation. I think a lot of
people that were in the stands didn’t agree with
this. A lot of people (I’m referring to the demon¬
strators) didn’t agree with this, but there’s always
that small percentage. No matter what you do,
you’re going to run into this.

And as far as discip! inary actions, along these
lines, it’s extremely difficult to single out people,
I think, unless you’ve got witnesses that are there
watching the different people and actually more
or less sitting there, looking for these people that
are trying to disrupt the ceremonies. So disciplin¬
ary action I think would be extremely difficult,
unless they have eyewitnesses. So I don’t think
you could really give them disciplinary action. I
think the reaction that they got on the campus
overall from many of the professors that were up
there, many of the administrators that were up
there, and a lot of the students that were up there
will do as much to show these people, the ones
that were catcalling and so forth, that they weren’t
right and that they aren’t going to be accepted in
the community and in the situation as long as they

keep doing this. So I think as far as what action
should be taken, I think this itself: the rejection
by the people that they’re with is going to be as
much of a punishment (if you want to call it) as
anything else. So that would be my reaction on
that question.

What was your reaction to the violence that fol¬
lowed Governor’s Day—the firing of Hartman
Hall and the Hobbit Hole?

This really came as a shock to me, because
that Wednesday night I was over there after sen¬
ate, after we’d gotten together, and we’d gone
into our groups. I was there until about three
o’clock. And it really made me feel bad when I
heard about it, because I thought everything was
going so well. The people were getting together,
they were stalling to communicate, they were
stalling to talk, and then the next thing that hap¬
pens, you heai - that Hartman Hall was bombed.
Well, this really shook me up quite a bit. Of
course, my first reaction was that it was outsid¬
ers, because there were some people there at the
senate meeting that weren’t from the Reno area.
I knew them when I went to high school, and
they’d been gone for about a year and a half. And
these were the ones, to me, that were doing most
of the catcalling, making most of the noise, and
trying to disrupt the meeting, while we were try¬
ing to have an orderly discussion of what was
going on. So, of course, this was my immediate
reaction: that it was outsiders.

After this, I sat back, and I thought about it,
and I felt very frustrated about, you know, ex¬
actly what was done Wednesday. Could this have
added to the fire and maybe caused more dam¬
age? Maybe we shouldn’t have even had the meet¬
ing. And I stalled thinking about it, and the people
that did this evidently were not people that were
at the meeting, because if they would have been,
they would have still been there, for that simple
reason. So, to me, it seemed like it must have
been outsiders, or if it wasn’t outsiders, it must
have just been a very small group of students here
on campus—maybe ten or fifteen.

438

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

As far as finding them, I would think it’d be
almost impossible, unless there was an eyewit¬
ness again on something like this. So it was kind
of a mixed reaction of frustration. On one part,
like exactly what did we do? What did we do all
Wednesday night? Trying to get these people to¬
gether, trying to get them to talk and communi¬
cate and get their differences out and see if they
can find something to agree on. And another paid
of quick decision and anger towards certain
people, when I really didn’t know whether they
did it or not. So it’d be kind of a mixed reaction.

Yes. How about the Hobbit Hole?

The Hobbit Hole. The thing that made me a
little bit mad about the Hobbit Hole was Slattery’s
remark that he’d come out with, saying that all
the cowboys should get together and just walk
over there and tear everything down. And to me
this showed complete lack of responsibility on
his part, because he didn’t know what the situa¬
tion was. He hasn’t ever taken the time to come
up here and find exactly what is going on on cam¬
pus. He just made a snap decision, and as usual,
the way Slattery is, he just makes a snap com¬
ment. And I think it just added more fuel to the
fire, which stirred everything up again. I think
the people took it very well, considering the situ¬
ation.

I know I had a meeting with the people over
in agriculture, as well as engineering and min¬
ing, that same day, and most of them hadn’t even
heard about it. They didn’t even realize what had
happened. This was about noon. And then I talked
to other people like Doug Sherman, and of course
they were upset. And it’s really just a sad situa¬
tion. You can’t pinpoint anybody; you can’t name
anybody; and you get to the point where you say,
well, who’s doing it? And you know it just can’t
be the students, because, I think, they come up
here for an education (most of them) or for a learn¬
ing process, and they realize that this isn’t going
to accomplish it—at least the people that I’m in
contact with through the ASUN and through the
USA and other places that I’ve been. And they

aren’t for violence. They’re for change, yes, but
it seems the disagreement comes in the type of
change—whether it should be through the sys¬
tem, orderly change, taking time, or do they want
quick change and get these ideas? If they don’t
work, then we’ll modify them. And I think this
seems to be the difference in the conflict be¬
tween ... is the action taken to get change or ... ?

You ’ ve sort of answered this, but I think I’ll ask it
anyway: what category of participant in the vari¬
ous affairs—students or faculty or outsiders—do
you feel was most important in fomenting the vio¬
lence ?

Like I mentioned before, I think the outsid¬
ers had some to do with getting the people in¬
flamed to the point where they wanted to do some¬
thing. I can’t say whether this is good or bad,
because this is the first time that people have
shown interest in ASUN government. I think
they’ve seen that ASUN government can operate
if it has the backing of the students, and it can get
things done if it has the backing of the students.
But previous to this time, there wasn’t anything
really that the students aroused. And conse¬
quently, they didn’t really care what happened.
They went to classes, and that was it.

Well, since everything’s kind of come to a
head in these past few weeks, they have had some¬
thing to rally around and something to do. And I
think in this respect that it was good. And as far
as getting more outsiders in, I think it’s good to
bring in different ideas. As far as agitators—
people come in directly to cause violence—I think
this is what we’re going to have to limit, and this
is what we’re going to have to watch. And I think
the university police are aware of this now; the
students themselves are aware of this now.

Well, it was the second day after the senate
meeting, they had a session over in Jot Travis,
and they singled out these five people that were
at the senate meeting. And they put these five
people up on the table, up in front of everybody
in each side (when I say “each side,” I’m refer¬
ring to the aggies and any long-hairs). They fired

LOUIS S. TEST

439

on these five people, asking questions: “What are
you doing here? We don’t want you here. We want
to solve our own problems.” And they really put
them on the spot. Consequently, the next day,
Friday, I understand that three of them were hitch¬
hiking out of town. So I think they more or less
eliminated this problem here.

And then I think another problem that helped
to inflame it was just the idea that once it got
started, it just kept building and kept rolling and
rolling and rolling. Consequently, people started
getting more involved, and lack of sleep and frus¬
tration on the part of many, I think, added to in¬
flame it. I would say it was mostly by the reac¬
tion of the community, because the community
also overreacted. When they heard about the fire
bombing of Flartman Flail and the disruptions at
Governor’s Day, the community overreacted to
the situation up here. And again, they didn’t take
the time to come up and find out what the facts
were, what the situation was. If you read the head¬
lines, you would think that the whole university
was burning down. And then, of course. Las Ve¬
gas newspapers didn’t help too much; they came
out with things like “University of Nevada at
Reno is a fiery blaze” and things like this, and of
course this caused overreaction down there. And
I think the comments that [Senators] Lamb and
Gibson made were along these same lines, be¬
cause, again, they didn’t take time to find out what
the facts were. They read the sensationalism in
the newspaper, and that was their overreaction.
So I’d say it was from outside more than any¬
thing: the sensationalism of the newspaper, out¬
side agitators coming in, and then just everything
kind of picking up momentum as it went along.

Yes. Well, what actions do you feel were most ef¬
fective in preventing more violence?

I think it was just the overall rejection of the
students and the faculty and the administration
for violence. The great majority just completely
denounced it. The Sagebrush came out with
strong editorials against it; the newspapers down¬
town came out with strong editorials against it.
The leaders of both sides were just completely

dumbfounded at what had happened. And I think
this was the thing that curtailed the violence—
just the reaction of the people on campus.

Yes. How do you think events on campus affect
the university’s image with outside people?

I think it hurt the university to begin with,
and I think the main reason was because the facts
weren’t really getting out. I think the newspapers,
as well as the radio stations and television sta¬
tions, were trying to build on this. I think they
were Lying to get a lot of things out of it that
weren’t in it. In the course of things, the commu¬
nity then got a bad image of the university. I’ve
gone out to several places in the community. I’ve
been to a couple of churches since the incidents,
and the people just had a complete lack of knowl¬
edge on exactly what had happened. They didn’t
understand the situation up here; they didn’t un¬
derstand the feelings of the people up here, as far
as the war in Vietnam, the escalation into Cam¬
bodia. And they weren’t really ready to listen.
Reno is a conservative town, and I’ve lived here
all my life, and they don’t understand the situa¬
tion. They hear one thing; they see everything on
television; and they automatically think the same
thing is happening at their university. So they’re
going to denounce all the long-hairs, they’re go¬
ing to put them in one category, and that’s going
to be it. I don’t think this is right, and I think this
is the image that we got immediately after the
incident.

But then I think groups have been going out
into the community and talking to people. I know
Sam Basta has been out there quite a few times
to different alumni organizations. I’ve talked to
people in the alumni organization and different
people at church areas, and I think it’s changing.
They’re realizing that it isn’t as much as the pa¬
per blew it up to be. I noticed a lot of the reaction
from the people—at least in the church group that
we went to—was the fact that the newspapers
were trying to sensationalize. And they got a little
bit mad at the newspapers for trying to blow it
into something that wasn’t right. This was the
opinion that I got, which I think is good, because

440

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

a lot of times the news media just adds to the
circumstances rather than helps.

Well, how can the university go about focusing
public opinion? You’ve mentioned this one ac¬
tivity that you ’ ve been involved in.

Yes.

Would you . . . ?

Well. I know in senate we have a community
relations committee, and in the past it hasn’t re¬
ally been functioning too much. It’s been bring¬
ing high school kids up to the university to see
what goes on in student government, things along
these lines. Well, what I’m trying to get started
this year and what, well, the senate in general
was trying to get started in the ASUN govern¬
ment, is to try and have speakers (students, these
are), one on the conservative side and one on the
liberal side, go out to the different organizations
in the community such as Kiwanis, Sertoma clubs,
and things along these lines, and give speeches
and ask them questions to get the relationship and
the communications going between the commu¬
nity and the school. This is one thing that we’re
trying to do.

Sam Basta is working very strongly on alumni
communications, where he takes different speak¬
ers, different people from the university (these
are students again) and he goes to the different
alumni meetings. We’ve been to Gardnerville
now—twice, in fact. We’ve been to Carson and
places like this, and we get to talking with the
alumni. And then over at the Center they’re stall¬
ing their more or less speakers bureau (I guess
you would call it), where they’re going to the dif¬
ferent churches around the community. And dur¬
ing their regular daily sermon, the professor (it
consists of a professor and two students) gets up
and more or less explains what’s going on up at
the university. So we’re opening up communica¬
tions here with the alumni, with the churches, and
with just the people in general. And I think this is
going to be a start as far as opening up communi¬
cations and getting the right focus on the univer¬

sity that’s necessary—that it is a place of educa¬
tion and of learning and not a place of dissent
and rioting.

Do you feel that issues of academic freedom are
involved in participation in demonstrations?

I think they were at the begin . . . no. I’ll say
they are at the end, not at the beginning, because
everybody more or less felt that they had the right,
from what I could see, to go out and express their
beliefs and their opinions. But the area where it
changed is when they tried to force their ideas
and their academic freedoms on other people. And
I think this is where the line was drawn. I know
this is where the line was drawn with the cow¬
boys. They didn’t mind the idea of them express¬
ing their ideas and getting their beliefs out, but
when they tried to force their ideas onto them,
this is where it stopped. This is where they felt
that academic freedom had ended. They have a
right to express their beliefs, but when they try
and force their ideas and their opinions on other
people, this is where it stops.

During the moratorium day they took pick¬
ets down to the aggie building, and they didn’t
tty to, you know, stop them from going inside the
building, but some of the pickets went inside the
building. And this wasn’t done anyplace else on
campus, which wasn’t exactly the best move on
certain people’s parts. And the aggies got a little
bit upset about this. And I think this is where the
academic freedom point came in. It was all right
up to a point, but this is where I really heard the
question come up—it was on this Friday. It came
up on both sides, because this was just about the
time then that everybody was stalling to get to¬
gether and stalling to communicate—I mean, re¬
ally communicate, really get down to it. Then the
question stalled coming up of academic freedom:
does everybody have a right to express their own
beliefs? So I would say it came up then more than
before. Then, of course, it evolved more as
Adamian and Maher were being charged, as to
exactly how much academic freedom a professor
should have. And according to the code at the

LOUIS S. TEST

441

university, it’s a little bit vague exactly what aca¬
demic freedom is.

Yes. How can students and faculty be effective
politically, or should they tty to be?

I think they have to be to an extent, because
unfortunately, here at the University of Nevada,
we are run by politics in a lot of respects, be¬
cause we are controlled by the state legislature
and the Board of Regents, which are held directly
responsible to the citizens of Nevada. So I think
if the people on the university want to have a good
system, they have to be a little bit politically in¬
volved.

I think that the best way to get involved is to
actively participate in campaigns. If they want a
person that they think will do a good job in of¬
fice, then go out and campaign for him and work
for him. I think this would be a lot more effective
than concentrating their efforts on the school and
tearing down the school. Get out into the com¬
munity and talk to the people in the community.
Get their ideas, get their feelings and opinions,
and then try and talk to them and tell them how
we feel about certain things. I think they’ll get
their dissent, and they’ll....

That dissent that they show up here at the
university, I think, can be transferred down in the
community. And I think this put together will
work politically to get these people in that they
want in. But the way they’re doing it now, they’re
concentrating their efforts on the people that al¬
ready know the situation and already know their
feelings. And to me, they’re just keeping it in one
place. They’ve got to spread it out; they’ve got to
get out in the community and talk to the people
in the community. If people in the community
don’t want to accept them, fine. That’s their aca¬
demic freedom, in a sense, to do what they want
to do. But yet they’re spreading it out more, so
maybe these people will start questioning some
of the ideas that they do have. And, consequently,
I think the whole educational system will be
stepped up—not only at the university, but also
in the community.

Yes. Where do you think the peace movement is
headed in this area ?

Hopefully, it’s headed in this direction. I think
they’ll accomplish a lot more. I could see that in
the demonstrations on Saturday in Washington.
They started breaking up into small groups, and
they started going to their legislatures; they started
going to their congressmen and their senators to
talk to them directly and say, “Now, look, this
isn’t what we want.” To them this isn’t the feel¬
ing of the majority of the people. I question this.
Of course. I’m a little bit conservative. But I think
this is the direction they have to take.

I think another thing that they could consider
is the fact that people have categorized “long-
hairs” into one section, and they aren’t going to
listen to them. I think if they cut their hair, make
a better impression on the people when they first
talk to them—if the girls will put on dresses in¬
stead of Levi’s and comb their hair and get
cleaned up—the people will be more ready to lis¬
ten to them, and I think they’ll make a better im¬
pression on them, and they’ll listen to their ideas.
But right now, when they show up in their long
hair and cutoffs and things along these lines (long
unshaven beards—some of them don’t shower,
some of them don’t shave—things along these
lines), the people automatically categorize them.
They aren’t going to listen to them. So I think it
would be better if they’d more or less change their
impression, their first impression on people, and
they’ll listen to them more. But right now they’re
just unshaven beatniks to an extent, and I think
this turns the general public off.

And I think this would be a step, a construc¬
tive step, to get their ideas across. But I think
they’re moving in the right direction as far as try¬
ing to get to the public, trying to get to their con¬
gressmen and their senators, and working through
the system to get changes done, because this is
how you get changes done. You don’t get it done
by rioting and tearing things down.

What other comments would you like to make
about the whole situation?

442

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

I'm glad it’s over with right now. It got a little
bit hectic there during finals—not too much
studying and not too much sleep and a lot of ten¬
sion. But I think, like I said before, it’s brought
everything to a head, and people have finally
started to realize that there are changes that arc
needed in the system. I think people are realizing
that the way to make changes is through the sys¬
tem. I think blue collar workers—the New York
incident, the aggie incident—are more or less
showing that they’ve got to work through the sys¬
tem. They’ve got to talk to the people, and they’ve
got to get a majority of the people on their side. I
think this is where the change is going to come,
and I hope that it’ll come without violence. I think
it will now.

I think the revolutionaries have lost their pull
on people since these people were killed at Kent.
I think the majority of the dissenters have real¬
ized that they aren’t going to gain anything
through violence—they’re only defeating their
purpose. And so they’re going to have to work
through the system. I think this is the thing that’s
come out of it. It’s come to a head now; the people
realize it; dissent—violent dissent—isn’t going
to work. The people aren’t going to stand for it.
The military isn’t going to stand for it, the gov¬
ernment isn’t going to stand for it, and they’re
going to have to find some other means of get¬
ting their ideas across. So I think this is the im¬
portant thing that’s come out of it. It’s a heck of a
way to do it, that four people have to lose their
life—well, I think it came to five lost lives, in
fact—that people have to lose their life before
some people actually realize that this way isn’t
going to work. And this is the only thing that’s
kind of saddening about the whole situation. But
if something good comes out of it, then maybe it
was worthwhile.

Yes. Good.

William C. Thornton

June 24, 1970

My name is William C. Thornton. I live in
Reno. Nevada. I don’t have any official connec¬
tion with the university. I’m an attorney in pri¬
vate practice in Reno. I graduated from the uni¬
versity in 1958. Since then I have served as presi¬
dent of the University of Nevada Alumni Asso¬
ciation for two years. I served on a committee
appointed by the president of the university to
tty to formulate a policy for the use of alcoholic
beverages on the campus or by the students. I
served on a committee appointed by the presi¬
dent connected with formulating a student bill of
rights at the university. And I’ve maintained a
generally high level of interest in the university
and its various activities.

Yes. Why do you think you were chosen to be in¬
terviewed?

Well, my understanding of the oral history
project and such, is that it’s deemed to be of pos¬
sible interest to collect historical data concern¬
ing certain events which occur at the university.

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to go into Cambodia with troops?

My reaction was basically one of disappoint¬
ment. I don’t know that I was particularly disap¬
pointed in Nixon ; I’m saying I was disappointed
in the decision. And my disappointment stems
from the fact that it was deemed to be desirable
to do that. I don’t evaluate it with any kind of a
moral judgment, right or wrong, and, unfortu¬
nately, like almost everyone else. I’m subject to
not knowing enough about the actual facts or the
military situation to form any kind of a definitive
judgment. So just in a general, overall way, I was
disappointed that anyone felt that the military situ¬
ation was such that it was necessary to expand
the war.

In what way do you think the Cambodia deci¬
sion was related to what happened next on the
university campus?

Well, I look at it as an action and a reaction:
the action was the entry into Cambodia, the reac¬
tion was a reaction by groups generally consid¬
ered to be peacenik youth, persons generally up¬
set about the war. It’s difficult to structure a re¬
sponse to something like expanding the war into
Cambodia. There are a lot of people in the present
society that say that the best way to structure a
response is to demonstrate or to do something

444

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

William Thornton, 1970s.

that has some kind of physical impact. And so I
look at the reaction as a response in the nature of
demonstrations and statements opposing the ex¬
pansion of war. Naturally, when the demonstra¬
tions and the responses were deemed by the re¬
sponsible police officials and such as being a little
bit too wild, then they stalled to clamp the lid on,
which created a pressure cooker and had some
unfortunate results.

What was your reactions to events in other parts
of the country related to the Cambodia decision?

I think that reactions in the other parts of the
country, to my way of feeling, were fairly typical
of my understanding of the various attitudes of
the people who reside in that area—that is, the
attitudes of the students and the attitudes in the
police. Maybe you could look at Jackson. Mis¬
sissippi. It seems to me a little more understand¬

able that the police there would shoot hundreds
of rounds of ammunition into a building, in which
the occupants were Negro students, because I feel
that in that area, for example, the police power is
a little more unfettered, the policemen themselves
are not as well trained, the social stigma of shoot¬
ing at Negro students is not very great, and, there¬
fore, they clamp the lid on a little harder there
than maybe some other areas.

Yes. Turning now to the Governor’s Day activi¬
ties at the University of Nevada: what did you
think of the arrangements made for observing
Governor’s Day?

Well, my understanding of the way it was
handled seemed to me to be a thoughtful and cor¬
rect way of handling it. This is based on certain
assumptions: that is, my understanding is that in
advance of Governor’s Day, it was felt by certain
persons, including President Miller, that there
were a group of students and other people who
wanted to make known their opposition to Presi¬
dent Nixon’s decision. And, therefore, it was
looked at to see how their opposition could be
made known and whether or not it should or could
or possibly would be made known by some kind
of an appearance at Governor’s Day, and that that
was felt not to be too desirable. Therefore, Presi¬
dent Miller extended to the opposition the use of
facilities at the campus bowl, and they were hope¬
fully to hold their rally in opposition to the
Governor’s Day in the bowl. I look at it as if they
were going to have a peace rally in the bowl, and
this would be a correct antithesis to a war rally
setting at Mackay Stadium. I’ve talked to some
of the students involved, some of the leaders; I’ve
told them what my thinking was. And they now,
looking back at it, say that the reason they went
to the stadium was because they didn’t feel that a
passive peace rally of their own, so to speak, in
the bowl would give them the impact that they
wanted to have by so-called crashing somebody
else’s party, namely, Governor’s Day.

What was your reaction to the demonstration ?

WILLIAM C. THORNTON

445

I didn’t actually see the demonstration, so I
don’t know. You know, I have heard about it, and
I’ve had several people tell me about it. And I
know that there were people who were physically
disruptive, and that sort of thing. If you’re going
to categorize demonstrations, you can categorize
people who go to other parties, so to speak, and
maybe they say some things that are not in keep¬
ing with the general organization of the effort, or
they might bring some signs, or they might get
up and do something physically. They got up and
did something physically, and they suffered some
grief for it. When you start doing things physi¬
cally, then people get emotionally out of control,
and usually there are some bad consequences,
which there were. Certain individuals have been
singled out as getting too far out of control; some
hard feelings have resulted, which will not be
easily overcome; and certain polarization and
criticisms leveled all over the place.

Yes. Did you feel it was necessary to participate
in any of the Governor !v Day activities or the
demonstration ?

No, I didn’t at that time. I have participated
in various peaceful rallies to make known my
position, which is more of a pro-peace position
than an antiwar position, if there is any distinc¬
tion. And one of the problems with an antiwar
position right now is that it’s interpreted by some
as only opposing the Vietnam War, or now known
as the Indochina War. And my personal thoughts
are that the use of force is not an acceptable means
for settling disputes, and that means any kind of
disputes—with your wife or your kids or the coun¬
try. And that means now and forever, not just the
local situation, the current war.

What do you think was the most effective part of
the demonstration or of the Governor’s Day ob¬
servance ?

Well, I don’t really understand your question.
And I wasn’t there, so I probably can’t answer it.

Yes. Well, that’s OK. What was your reaction to
the violence that followed Governor ’s Day then —
the fire bombing?

Well, I didn’t get too worried about it. [laugh¬
ter] My actual mental process that I went through
at the time was a sort of wondrous amazement of
the fact that the national ROTC did not have in
its policy or standing policy whereby they were
guarding any of their buildings. And that was
about my only reaction. I didn’t feel that it was
any great new or continued effort to cause a lot
of problems. I also felt that they were lucky that
that old wooden building didn’t bum down. I think
if it had that it would’ve made it a lot tenser situ¬
ation in the town and the state, and the politi¬
cians would have hopped in a lot more. But for
the grace of God that they put out the fire in the
first few minutes—there weren’t any real bad
problems involved.

Yes. What category of participant in these vari¬
ous affairs—the students, the faculty, or outsid¬
ers—do you feel was most important in foment¬
ing violence on campus?

[long pause] Well, you know, that you’re say¬
ing “fomenting,” I don’t really know what “fo¬
menting” means. The community being the way
it is, in my opinion, I don’t think that we’ve had
too many of the original ideas on how to respond
or how to create violence. So there’s some back¬
ground of general feeling in the country and ac¬
tion in other parts of the country. But as far as
who brought it about locally, there were certain
“radical” students and faculty members who led
it, and I'm not sure that it was a studied thing.
That is, I feel that they may have gone to the sta¬
dium and in other areas where the violence oc¬
curred with the idea that there wouldn’t be vio¬
lence, but somehow got caught up in the thing,
and there was violence, because no one can be
that meticulous or precise in their control of ex¬
actly how people’s emotions are going to come
about.

446

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Yes. Do you think outsiders were important?

I don’t think they were important, no.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence in the situation that
followed the fire bombing?

Cool-headedness on some of the people who
were around in positions of responsibility, and
also the fact that there is, I feel, quite a bit of
respect in existence on the University of Nevada
campus running in through all lines between fac¬
ulty and students—between faculty and admin¬
istration; students and administration, et cetera.
So certain key people—President Miller, some
of the key faculty people, key student leaders—
sat down together. They were able to communi¬
cate and pull things together and presented a uni¬
fied front, not criticizing each other and asking
the community to cool it.

Yes. How do you think events on campus affect
the university’s image with outsiders?

I feel that everyone makes their interpreta¬
tion of the events based on their particular preju¬
dices and biases of longstanding that exist at the
time the events occur and very little new thought.
That is, I feel that conservative people look at it
and are critical and say that “Things should be
the way they were before,” and “Kids are out of
line,” and “Everything’s going to hell.” The lib¬
eral peacenik people think that maybe some of
what is going on is right, and that you have to
oppose the war, and how are you going to do it?
Maybe there are some good, new thoughts being
created, and the youth are the ones to do it.

What can the university do to focus public opin¬
ion?

On what?

On events on campus that are affecting the im¬
age.

Well, I mean, when you say “focus,” what do
you mean? You mean to focus it or to direct it in
a way, to direct the focus so that they’re present¬
ing a good image or just to focus it?

Well, to tell the university’s story without distor¬
tion. You ’ve said that people interpret events ac¬
cording to their own experience. Is there some
way that the university can tell its story so that it
won’t become distorted?

Well, the way I see it, there’s a big problem
with the present time in everyone’s minds as to
what is the role of a university. I think that’s a
problem for the president of the university, the
regents, the students, the faculty, and the off-cam-
pus people, generally. The role of the university
today is not the role that it was a few years ago,
and there are certain of the more liberal, progres¬
sive elements promoting a new role that is more
involvement. I think it’s a very enveloping thing.
I think that the issue that should be discussed and
can be defended and perhaps explored and ex¬
amined is: what is the proper role of the univer¬
sity in present-day society?

Do you think issues of academic freedom were
involved in participating in a demonstration?

Definitely.

Do you want to expand on that?

Well, the reason I feel they’re involved is that
it revolves around my rule of thumb or question¬
ing: now, what is the role of the university? Be¬
cause, you see, what’s the role of the university?
What’s the role of the faculty? The traditional
view we’re taking, a conservative line of thought,
would say the role of the faculty is to teach events
(and I’m saying historical events: What’s been
going on in the past and what significance are
they? What is our present body of knowledge?),
and that they should deal only with that. When
you talk about the present body of knowledge,
you’re usually taking things from the present and

WILLIAM C. THORNTON

447

going backwards. But the problem is that a fac¬
ulty member finds difficulty in his present stu¬
dents. If you're going to talk about ecology or
war or peace or politics or all that, they’re begin¬
ning to act on present-day events, and there are a
lot of reasons for this. But I think you can’t say,
“Talk about peace,” or in political science classes,
“Talk about international affairs and foreign re¬
lations,” and then not have the students want to,
you know, interpolate it into present-day affairs
and form opinions.

Then we have many politicians now, maybe
starting with Kennedy (about that time) who
would go to the campus—McCarthy and others.
They sought student support. They wanted to get
student involvement on these issues. So we have
the faculty and the students getting off campus
with their ideas, and that presents quite a conflict
with people who say, “You should stay on cam¬
pus up on your ivory tower,” and you can’t have
it both ways. So that’s the big problem.

Yes. How can students and faculty be effective
politically, or should they be trying to influence
governmental policies ?

Well, I don’t think anybody can turn off their
mind. And I think if they study international af¬
fairs, ecology, pollution, whatever the current is¬
sues are—civil rights—they form a knowledge¬
able body of people who should have a method
for commenting on what their views are. I don’t
see that we need any new political system or any¬
thing. I think the present systems are OK, but they
would channel their ideas through those things:
work for the candidates they want, speak on is¬
sues, and that sort of thing.

Where is the peace movement in this area headed
now?

You mean as far as students are concerned
and that sort of thing?

1447/, in the area. Since some people see this —
the Governor's Day activities and so forth, or the

counter-Govemor’s Day activities—as a part of
the peace movemen t.

No. Well, I don’t know exactly where it’s
headed. Where it’s headed depends on, you know,
who comes back to school next year and who
takes up the reins of leadership with the students
and that sort of thing. I don’t see any reason why,
you know, if Governor’s Day is “war day,” that
they couldn’t plan to have “peace day,” and they
could plan to have a peace rally next May 15 or
May 1, and they could aim towards that. They
could try to have a well-known speaker come in.
They could mobilize student and faculty and com¬
munity opinion and have a rally, a peace rally at
Mackay Stadium or elsewhere that would be twice
as big as the governor’s rally, if they organized it
right and found that there was the support for it.
And they could give somebody a medal—the
“peace medal.” I mean, that’s, you know, sort of
the other side of the coin. That’s what they could
do, and that’s probably what they’re going to have
to do or do nothing, because they’re not going to
be able to continue to be party crashers.

Yes.. What other comments would you like to make
about this whole situation now?

Well, nothing other than my personal deci¬
sion to establish a peace prize at the University
of Nevada. With my wife and our families, we
discussed this, and I am hopeful that this might
provide the catalyst for putting the pro-peace
people in a positive structure. I mean, this would
be the prize that could be awarded at next year’s
peace rally, if somebody wants to use it that way.

William W. Valline

June 2, 1970

OK. Why do you think you were chosen to be in-
terviewed?

I don’t know, unless it was the award I got
for ROTC. I figured that might have been the basis
for some selection.

OK. What was your reaction to President Nixon’s
decision to send troops into Cambodia ?

Well, as far as sending troops into Cambo¬
dia, I thought he should, mainly because I agree
with ending the war over there as soon as pos¬
sible. And the only way I feel they could do it is
to stop the Vietcong or, you know, the commu¬
nists from striking back across the border. I’ve
talked to men, being in RO, that sat over there in
Vietnam and actually watched the communist
troops right across the border training. And they
can’t do anything about it. Well, if you’re going
to go out to win the war and end it, he might as
well go in . . . you know, maybe we’ll help end it
faster.

Yes.

So when he went in, you know, committing
more troops and everything I thought it was the
best possible way to bring the war to a quick end
over there.

Yes. In what way, do you think, did the Cambodia
decision have an effect on what happened next
on the campus, or do you think it had any effect
on what happened next?

Well, I think between the Cambodia incident
(and what’s going on over there now) and be¬
tween Kent University (and what happened at that
time), they were both just kind of a catalyst to
bring about what happened on our university cam¬
pus today. The students seem to me to be, you
know, real reactionary. They go with whatever
the trend is. Everybody’s so against the war in
Vietnam, anyway, that the school started rioting
when President Nixon went in committing more
troops after he said he’d pull everybody out. The
minute he did that, all the schools all over the
nation were up in aims, and I think Nevada just
more or less followed the trend. There are cer¬
tain elements on the campus that had the feeling,
you know, that this is the thing to do—just con¬
servative radicals, or whatever you want to call

450

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

them. And you could see the opposing group, just
like on Governor’s Day. The kids don’t want the
war. They want to get out. And the minute you
commit more troops, it was just the reactionary
thing with the rest of the United States.

Yes. So you think that there was sort of a follow¬
ing of a trend, rather than being something which.
?

Individual?

Yes.

Well, I think there was an individual.... I
believe the individuals that were in it, some were
sincere, and yet I know personally that some of
the kids that took part in what went on do not
even go to the university, are just more or less
dropouts in the community, as far as doing any¬
thing. They were just up there for one reason: to
cause trouble.

And like I say, they were kids from my high
school. I knew them personally, and I knew what
they were doing. And I know they don’t go to
school, and I know what they’re doing. So, you
know, it made me wonder how much the element
was really sincere about what was going on.

Right. Right. Could you, without mentioning
names, characterize some of these individuals
that you considered outsiders or knew that were
outsiders? What did they do, usually? What were
their characteristics?

Good examples. When the kids were in high
school, there was, you know, an outstanding ath¬
lete here and there, but they seemed rather im¬
mature throughout their high school career, to me,
anyway—just general opinion of the different
kids—but rather good athletes and so forth. Got
to college, didn’t keep up the grades, so they quit.
They were there maybe a semester and flunked
out, is what it amounted to. Right now they’re
not doing anything. They’re not working. I know
both are users of drugs. One’s been picked up
three times, as a matter of fact.

And as far as coming onto the campus, they
came when I went to the senate meeting, when
the USA (which is United Student Alliance) up
there now was supposedly trying to push some
measures through and to call off classes and all
this stuff. So that the night the senate met—one
of the biggest meetings I guess they’ve had in
quite awhile—there was quite a variety of people
who showed up to discuss their problems and
things. These kids were there at the time just yell¬
ing anything to disrupt the meeting, not really
bringing out any pertinent points or anything, just
more or less to cause trouble. They seemed to be
up there just to disturb stuff on campus, yet
they’re not affiliated with the university in any
way. So why are they up there—unless this is the
place where the action is. Also, a lot of the high
school kids that are still in high school were up
there on different things.

So it’s not just the students at the university.
Matter of fact, it seems to be a minority group
that were really active in it. They seemed to have
a lot of high school kids and a lot of kids that are
not even affiliated with the university.

Yes. So you think that there was a large number
of ou tsiders, perhaps.

From the people that I knew that were out¬
siders, of course, there were. And I feel it’s about
fifty-fifty mainly, you know. But there was a good
portion that were from outside the campus.

OK. What was your reaction to events in other
parts of the country, for instance, Kent State?

Kent State? Well, my main opinion on that
was the kids that got shot—a terrible thing—but
as far as the guardsmen being used as police units
like they are, guardsmen aren’t experienced
enough, they’re not trained soldiers. They’re
once-a-month soldiers. And you cannot expect
people like this . . . they get just as afraid and just
as scared as anybody else.

And you get into a situation like this, where
you’ve got 15,000 people or 1,500, you know,
against you, and then somebody fires a shot (as

WILLIAM W. VAT.T.INF.

451

supposedly did happen) and somebody’s liable
to blow up. And I think that’s exactly what hap¬
pened. It just. . . somebody blew their cool, and
somebody paid for it. The kids got hurt, but ev¬
erybody says they were innocent bystanders.
Well, if they were innocent bystanders, what were
they doing there? As far as, you know, guns and
rocks, bullets and rocks are different things, but
you stand there and get rocks thrown at you all
day, they begin to hurt, too.

Yes. That's a good point.

So it was an unfortunate thing, but I think
it’s just like the race riots and everything else
that’s going on in the country right now: people
are getting fed up with what’s going on, and you
can’t control everybody’s emotions the way you
should. So if they say “peace,” fine. You know, a
peaceful rally is just fine, but when you start
throwing rocks, it’s not a peaceful demonstration
anymore.

And it erupted in violence, and somebody got
hurt. And it’s the same all over. Other campuses
had peaceful demonstrations, like ours on
Governor’s Day was fairly peaceful, but yet there
were a couple of fistfights that broke out, and
there were also people that tried to push it over
to the violent side. There’s always the radical el¬
ement that wants to go beyond just a peaceful
demonstration. The group that was demonstrat¬
ing had their say on Governor’s Day—and they
let them do exactly what they wanted to. But yet
they weren’t satisfied with having their rights.
They wanted to infringe upon the other people
by, you know, yelling and screaming during the
ceremony. They just didn’t want to cut it off at
that point. So I think the students tend to carry
everything a little too far to get their point across.

Peaceful demonstrations I'm all for. I think
everybody’s got a right to show what they be¬
lieve in. Mainly a lot of people in this country
are over in Vietnam fighting for the right to be
able to show what they believe in. And today,
there’s always the radical element, and I think
it’s getting a lot worse on our campus now.

Yes. You think it is getting worse?

I know it’s getting worse.

In what way? I mean, a larger number of radi¬
cals?

A larger number here of radicals, a more or¬
ganized group, like the Brown Berets. Well, the
leader in it now came over to our fraternity house
that I belong to, a fraternity on campus.

Really?

He came over to our house selling magazines
and things and just sat around. And we rapped
for about two hours. You know, he came in the
president’s room, and we just sat around and
rapped for about two hours. And he was telling
us different things. They’re coming on campus
supposedly next year. About thirty of them are
working in the community and earn their own
way. They’re paying their own money to go to
school. The theory is that they’re going to move
onto the campus with the idea of trying a new
peaceful movement and obtaining more funds for
the minority groups on campus, more teachers,
and things of this nature, peacefully.

However, he says if they can’t do it that way,
they will resort to violence if necessary. The guy
that was there is the president of the chapter in
the Reno area. He is up for an indictment before
the California Grand Jury for rioting on Hunter’s
Point. He’s been shot twice; he served in the fed¬
eral penitentiary when he was thirteen for incit¬
ing to riot. And these guys just aren’t kidding. So
this is one element that’s coming on campus. And
as you can see from the fire bombings we had of
the Hobbit Hut and the RO Department, things
of this nature, the Black Student Union are strictly
radical from what this other guy was telling us.
And the radical element is getting worse on cam¬
pus. And unless something is done to control it, I
think we’re going to end up with more serious
problems than we’ve got now.

452

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, this group of the Brown Berets, as you call
them, are they going to be students on the cam¬
pus?

Yes. They’re applying for loans, and they plan
to go to college. And they plan on, this way, be¬
ing affiliated with the college and trying to work
through channels. This guy was a Mexican, and
he said if they cannot get what they need, if need
be, they will resort to violence.

They expected to be admitted to the university,
then ?

He says he has the qualifications as a stu¬
dent. He says they can’t keep him out, which they
legally can’t. If he pays his money and meets all
the requirements, how are you going to keep a
person out of college?

Is he living in Nevada?

Well, he works at Saint Mary’s Hospital as a
head cook or something. I forget what exactly he
did. But he said there’s others in the community,
you know, that are doing just this; they’re just a
chapter of the Brown Berets.

How would you characterize, let’s say, a radi¬
cal? What would be your conception of a radical
or a conservative ?

To me, a radical is a person that will not lis¬
ten to conservative ideas at all. Well, even, you
know, a middle-roader. This is the way it is, and
there’s no in-between. And the same with the
conservative. One is extremely one way, and one
is the other way, and neither one of them is will¬
ing to listen to the other person as to what he
reasonably has to say even.

To me, some of the Negroes on our campus
are completely radical, because they will not lis¬
ten to anything else. No matter what you say,
everybody’s against them. You can help them, and
they still.... And the same with some of the other
minority groups and things like this. Now, to me,
the Brown Beret I was talking about is not a radi¬

cal. He is extremely left or right (or whatever you
want to call him, depending on your view, I
guess). But in the sense that he will riot or some¬
thing when it gets to that point, then I consider
him, you know, a radical. But as far as just his
views, he was liberal in his views, but yet he was
a middle-of-the-roader. He’d listen to the other
side; he could see good points and bad points on
both. If they’re just being so, you know, com¬
pletely radical, they won’t listen to the conserva¬
tive side, or so completely conservative, they
won’t listen to the radical side at all.

And radicals to me go out and burn schools,
fire bomb—things of this type are radical, you
know. They’re not only radical, I think they’re
irrational. They don’t gain anything. You can have
a peaceful demonstration talk, like some of the
Center things that went on this year that I went
to, where everybody finally came and talked about
things. I think a lot more was accomplished there
than the radical idea of going out and, you know,
throwing a fire bomb in the Hobbit Hut or the
ROTC building. It accomplished absolutely noth¬
ing, except making both sides look bad.

Yes. What do you think of the Governor’s Day:
the arrangemen ts that were made for the obser¬
vance? Do you think they were appropriate, or
could they have been changed somehow?

What do you mean the arrangements? By
who? The school or the students?

No, by the Governor’s Day activities committee
or whoever set up the whole thing.

Well, I don’t know. I was in the RO program,
and as far as I know, it’s coordinated every year
through the president of the school, N. Edd Miller,
and it’s been a traditional thing. So I’m sure ev¬
erybody knew it was coming. It was, you know,
set for a certain day as picked ahead of time. And
as far as the planning and everything went, as
much as I know, it seemed to be fine, well in ad¬
vance. But I don’t think anybody planned on the
demonstrations or the things that actually hap¬
pened.

WILLIAM W. VAT.I.INF.

453

You know, I don’t think anybody visualized
the problems that could have erupted and did
erupt in a couple of cases from the planned ac¬
tivities. And as far as the students saying, “Well,
we could have had a day off, you know.
Governor’s Day is planned, and funds are appro¬
priated for this and that, and a day off isn’t . . . .”
I don’t know. If everybody knew about it, if they
wanted to change it, they should have Pied. But
nobody even cared until the day it was there, and
then they said, “Well, you know, you did this,
and you shouldn’t have, and what a poor day to
have it.”

But it was just the way it happened. I think
the incidents that happened before Governor’s
Day, moving into Cambodia and Kent State and
a few other things like this, were not foreseen
when the date was set, which was last year, as far
as I know. So it was just an unfortunate series of
events that happened right, you know, just kind
of together, and it ran into problems.

Right. You sort of touched on it already, but what
was your reaction to the demonstrations on that
day?

Oh, well, we knew there was going to be a
meeting down at the bowl, you know, of suppos¬
edly a peace rally. And then we heard after we
got up there that the students were going to come
up. And when they did, they marched around the
track. I mean, this was fine. The only reason it
made me hot: I had to stand there in the sun for a
half hour, [laughter]

It wasn’t the sun. [laughter] And I don’t
like being out there any more than the rest of
them. But they marched around three times and
then sat down. That would have been fine.
They got their point across, you know, and this
is all fine. I agree with them—if they want to
march around, that’s their thing. Let them do
it, you know.

But when they got in the stands and stalled
mocking the awards that were given out ....

There were several awards given out for kids that
were killed in Vietnam. And when this one was
given out, certain people in the stands stalled
yelling, “Yes, make a martyr out of him.” And
this was for colonel. . . well, I forget his name.
His son had been killed in Vietnam, but they
started yelling, “Yes, make a martyr out of your
son,” you know. Supposedly, they’re up there
demonstrating to stop what’s going on in Viet¬
nam, respecting the people who have been killed
over there, and this sort of thing. And then just to
come out with jeers like that—“Make a martyr
out of your dead son”—you know, tease and all
that stuff, they carried it too far. They started be¬
coming radical instead of rational.

And then, supposedly, N. Edd Miller is the
one that said, “Go ahead.” He’s the one that
let them march around and everything else.
Then they won’t even respect the man enough
to be quiet for him. Or at the beginning of the
year, a typical thing . . . they give him that big
party, which made the papers all over the
United States, sent him on a trip, and all this
stuff. And then they turn right around and just
throw it right back in his face and just show
him nothing but disrespect. And to me they’re
just very confused. It seems like they don’t
know what they want. Their ideas are just re¬
versed. They do one thing and then just turn
around and, you know, nullify it.

Do you think it was the same group that did both ?
Or do you think some of the ones that were in¬
volved were the same?

Well, I tell you, the kids that go to the uni¬
versity were in the N. Edd Miller Day, the same
kids that were .... I am not saying they arc radi¬
cal or conservative, but they’re activists on the
campus. They get things rolling, more or less.
And a lot of them were in N. Edd Miller Day,
and they were also in the moratorium day, more
or less. But the kids that were from off-campus,
the high school kids and things like this, were

454

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

not there on N. Edd Miller Day, but yet they were
here to cause the trouble.

And this, to me, is the insincere group, the
radical group that’s just out to cause trouble. You
know, it seems we’ll have a peaceful demonstra¬
tion, then they bomb Hartman Hall. Then some¬
body then bombs the Hobbit Hut. So they nullify
themselves: you know, “love, peace, love”—all
this baloney—and it just turns around and they
do the opposite thing. And the same thing with
N. Edd Miller, and the same thing with all the
kids that died in Vietnam. They just seem to nul¬
lify what they stand for. So they seem very mixed
up or confused or don’t know what they’re after.

Yes. [laughter] I guess it’s sort of a silly question
to ask you, since you were in the ROTC, and you
did receive an award, but did you feel it was nec¬
essary to participate in Governor’s Day? And
were there any of the people in the ROTC that
you know of without mentioning names, that you
feel kind of didn’t want to participate in the
ROTC?

Well, to me, if the program is voluntary as
such, it’s maybe the better of two evils, is what it
amounts to. It’s a good way to go, because I’ve
got to serve in the service. As far as I know, I
have no physical defect. I believe in my country;
I don’t mind, you know, putting time into the ser¬
vice. I don’t want to go to Vietnam any more than
the next guy, but I will if I have to.

And so, to me, if you’re in the program, you
have to do certain things. Governor’s Day was
one of the things that was required. And I’m sure
there were guys out there that didn’t want to be
there. Like drill: I don’t like drill any better than
anybody else, because, you know, you have to
study for it just like any other class. You’re re¬
quired to take it, so you go to it and do what you
have to do. And I’m sure there are people in other
classes that don’t want to be there, but they’re
there because if they don’t, they’ll get their grade
knocked down. And I think RO was the same way.
I know there’s a liberal element in RO, and there’s
probably the more conservative element, also. But
I know people in RO that are, well, maybe some

of the more liberal people on campus, yet they
don’t really do the liberal job up in the RO De¬
partment that they should. I mean, you know,
they’re kind of afraid to act that way around the
RO Department, because the people in the de¬
partment are naturally more conservative. And
they believe in being in Vietnam and so forth.
But I think Colonel Hill, who is the new colonel
up there this semester, has done wonders for put¬
ting the stature of ROTC up on campus.

Tremendously, yes.

He comes to the senate meetings and things
like this, and he’ll rap with conservative, radi¬
cals, or anything. And the thing is, he knows what
he’s talking about, and he’s a hard man to put
down. And I think he’s impressed a lot of people
both ways.

Yes. Yes. I think that’s a good point. This is sort
of a two-sided question here: what did you feel
was the most effective part of the demonstration,
and what did you feel was the most effective part
of the Governor’s Day observance?

The most effective part of the demonstrations
was probably the mass of people that they had.
And it sure wasn’t their conduct. The numbers
that they had was more impressive than anything,
because it’s one of the bigger demonstrations that
we’ve had on campus as such. Most of the others
have been, you know, kind of just a few here, a
few there, and it never amounted to much. But
they did have quite a number this time, and I think
that surprised people more than anything.

As far - as the Governor’s Day ceremony went,
I think it was the composure with which the ca¬
dets acted, as to the insults and things that they
were exposed, as well as the dignitaries that were
there. For a man to be giving out an award for his
dead son and have somebody say, “Make a mar¬
tyr out of him,” and not just completely blow his
cool was, I thought, quite commendable. I think
this stood out more than anything else on the part
of the cadets, as well as, you know, the other
people in the stands.

WILLIAM W. VAT.T.INF.

455

And for both sides, I think the composure was
shown with no fights as such during the demon¬
strations on the field up there. I understand, be¬
fore they got up there, there were a few things
that happened, but other than that it was, you
know, fairly well done.

Oh, before they got up there?

Yes. Well, like an ATO and a radical got in a
fight. One of the generals had to pull a kid off the
front of a car; I guess he more or less just about
threw him across the block. And, you know,
reaching in the car, taking swings at some of the
drivers that were driving the kids, and just laying
down in front of the car—this sort of thing. It
didn’t accomplish anything. It held up the cer¬
emonies, and, you know, they weren’t proving
anything. They didn’t get their point across. That
was when they were acting radical. They were,
you know, accomplishing nothing, except trying
to cause trouble—and succeeded in a few cases.

You don’t think they had any particular purpose
in mind in doing it, other than just delaying or
upsetting it?

Just delaying the ceremonies, which they
thought shouldn’t have been held. So they thought
maybe they’ll hold them up as long as possible,
but that’s all they did. To me, they proved very
little other than that they were trying to cause
trouble, which most of the ones that were laying
down weren’t that way, you know. And you’ve
always got the (well, I don’t know what you call
them) radical element, the few that will cause the
trouble and are the leaders.

Right. Yes. What do you think the reaction of the
ROTC or the demonstrators (this is another one
of those that have several sides to it) or the ad¬
ministration to what happened on that day? What
do you think the reaction of all those people
should have been?

Should have been, or was?

Should have been. Do you think it was as it should
have been, or should it have been different, and
if so, how?

Well, I think the administration and the
ROTC Department took it very well, as to what
went on. The demonstrators took the ceremony
all right in stride, but they seemed to take other
things kind of not in perspective. You know, they
let things get out of hand a couple of times. But
as far as the administration’s policy as to let them
have their thing, that was fine. You know, I think
they took the right attitude in not trying to stifle
things with the police or anything like this, be¬
cause it could have ran into a real problem. The
RO Department didn’t turn the cadets loose and
let them, you know, go into this. But everybody
kind of hied to maintain their composure, and I
think it was commendable on all sides.

OK. What was your reaction to the violence that
followed with the bombing of the Hobbit Hole
and the ROTC?

I know I thought both of them were ridicu¬
lous. I don’t know who did either one, you know,
and there’s speculations, “Oh, the RO guys
bombed their own building to make everybody
look bad.” I don’t think this is true. And the same
thing, you know, about Hobbit Hole. But to me,
the violence accomplished nothing. It burned
down a building. You know, that if they burned
down the ROTC building, they’d just move over
in just one of the other buildings. You know, it’s
the class you got to go to. Burning the building
doesn’t symbolize anything. And the same with
burning the Hobbit Hole. To me, they were radi¬
cal movement, irrational. They accomplish ab¬
solutely nothing except making headlines in the
paper, you know, and stirring up a bunch of
trouble.

What was your reaction, when you first heard it,
to who might have done either one of them?

Well, there’s the thing on the RO wall. I’d
heard from, you know, all the meetings that were

456

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

going on in the SDS and the USA on campus—
everybody’s talking about burning the RO De¬
partment or just moving in and taking it over and
things of this nature. The Black Student Union
and things like this were the radical elements on
the campus. We’re talking about burning the
buildings, taking them over, and this sort of thing.
So people about halfway expected it, you know,
kind of.

But I was really kind of surprised who really
burned down Hartman Hall, you know, or tried.
It was kind of a shock, because after the peaceful
demonstrations, the senate meeting, and every¬
thing, I had the feeling that maybe there’s a little
more understanding in things like this. And I think
there was in the general campus, except for the
few people that are radical that will try some¬
thing like this just to cause the trouble. And I
think this went both ways. It was probably the
ultra-radicals or the ultra-conservatives that burnt
down either building.

I don’t think it was the majority of the stu¬
dents. There were all sorts of editorials in the city
newspaper as well as the school, and everybody
deplored the action—even the radical group, you
know, as well as the conservative. It was stupid.
It was some person that was just an extreme ei¬
ther way. And it was senseless to me.

Yes. Do you think that there was any impetus for
these things from the community—I mean, the
reaction of the community?

[laughter]

[laughter] No, I don’t mean, “did anybody from
the community get these things to happen?’’
[laughter] What I mean is: what was the reac¬
tion of the community? Do you feel that the reac¬
tion of the community had anything to do with
subsequent reactions on the campus?

I don’t think the community really had a re¬
action—maybe to Kent State, you know. A lot of
people thought that was terrible; for a lot of oth¬
ers it was, “Shoot them all,” you know, “and
maybe it’ll stop the rioting on the campuses,” and

things like this. But it wasn’t until there was ac¬
tually the demonstration on Governor’s Day, at
which most people became very upset because
of the way the dignitaries were treated themselves.
You don’t treat people in high offices like this
and plan to get anywhere, because, you know,
it’s like biting the hand that feeds you. They swing
the weight, and even if you don’t like them,
they’re there.

You elect them, or you don’t elect them, but
once they’re there, you better respect them, be¬
cause they got the power to do it. And once this
got around the community. I’m sure everybody
on campus realized that people in the commu¬
nity were real upset. The Alumni Associa¬
tion ....

Well, there are still repercussions coming on
right now, like they’re frying to set up that bill of
conduct or code of conduct for the teachers and
for the newspaper and for the students—whereas
on Governor’s Day there was no code of con¬
duct. You can’t say, “Well, we’ll fire this teacher,
we’ll expel that kid,” because there is nothing as
to actually what they could or couldn’t do. And
now they’re trying to get a code that says, “If you
do this, you’re gone.” And I think this is just a
repercussion of Governor’s Day and the way the
people felt.

The legislature is talking about cutting off
funds and doing this and doing that, because the
community took it rather hard at the way the stu¬
dents were acting—which they considered radi¬
cal and, you know, unreasonable. When you start
burning down your own school, what are you
doing then?

Yes, that’s very true. Yes.

I mean, they shouldn’t dig that at all.

How did you think that the demonstrations af¬
fected the university’s image with outsiders?
You’ve also discussed it a little bit.

Well, a lot of people were disgusted. You
know, a lot of people said, “I’m disgusted with
my own moderate way of acting,” and things like

WILLIAM W. VAT.T.INF.

457

this. But I think a lot of people don’t stop to real¬
ize that it was the minority. Like I say, there’s
minority conservatives, and there’s minority radi¬
cals. And those two were probably the two that
were most active in that day. Like a lot of people
considered the RO the conservatives. If you take
ROTC, it adds a conservative element. And three-
quarters of the school were in classes doing what
they were supposed to be doing or not, you know,
participating. And I think a lot of people stopped
and realized this and said, “Well, it was, you
know, radicals just happening all over our cam¬
pus, and it isn’t as bad as others.” Yet others were
quite distraught with what happened, as can be
seen from the repercussions that have taken place
since that time. Overall, I think the community is
over the shock. I think it was the initial shock
that everybody was down on it. But once they sat
down and thought about it, they’ve changed their
opinion quite a bit.

Well, what do you think of the idea of cutting off
funding?

I think cutting off funds to the university hurts
everybody, which is stupid. It’s not the majority
of the school that’s doing this. And I think, if
anything, they should run a more effective con¬
trol through their Board of Regents and through
the president of the school. If they have to, get a
new president and get somebody that’s stronger
or weaker, whatever you want to say. I don’t know.
I can’t say N. Edd Miller is bad or he is good at
this time, if so. He has points both ways, I imag¬
ine. But I think it’s up to the Board of Regents
and the people that actually control the funds to
start looking into these things.

I’ve heard from a woman that works in the
office up there giving out tuition waivers and
things that 90 percent of the radicals that were
causing the trouble and things are on tuition waiv¬
ers, government grants, and this sort of thing and
are not even paying to go to school. If these are
the kids that are saying, “Dismiss classes for a
day,” it’s guys like me that have to go out and
work. I’ve worked since I was in ninth grade and
things like this, you know, and partially pay for

my books and stuff. I have to work to join other
things and get a car and a few things like this. I
realize that my education is more valuable to me.
I’ve had to work to get it, so it means more to me.
I don’t want to just give up a day of classes, be¬
cause I’ve got, you know, other things to do.

These (oh, what do you want to call them?)
idealistic ideas are fine—you know, let’s hold a
memorial day and all this stuff—but I’m not that
idealistic. I got more realistic things that I want
to take care of before things like this. Sure, I felt
bad about kids getting shot, but to me, if they
wouldn’t have been there, they wouldn’t have got
shot. So they asked for it; they got it. And it’s too
bad it happened, but it’ll happen at other places
if it keeps up.

What actions do you feel were most responsible
for keeping the situation less violent than it could
have been?

Mainly, I give Miller a lot of credit for the
way he handled things. The police were there,
but the Reno Police Department did not do any¬
thing. They were there in case trouble stalled,
but they let everybody do their own thing and
didn’t step in. And I think this is what stopped
the trouble. If somebody had confronted either
group—especially the demonstrators—and said,
“You can’t do this, or you can’t do that,” things
could have got.... The RO cadets were so regi¬
mented (if you want to put it that way) that they
were told, “Before you go out there, you stay in
ranks, you don’t break.” And it was just kind of a
joke, you know. We laughed at the guys that just
sat around. If they want to march around, that’s
fine, [laughter] I wouldn’t get up and run around
the track three times to cause trouble, but if they
want to do that.... So I think the credit goes to
the administration, as well as the people involved
and Reno Police Department, because everybody
really maintained and handled things fairly well.

Yes. What actions do you feel contributed most
to what little violence—or let’s say not violence,
but trouble—there was during the demonstration?

458

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Do you feel that any particular faction was most
responsible for this?

For the violence that did occur?

Yes, what little did occur.

Well, now, the little that did occur was ei¬
ther, like I say, extreme radical or extreme con¬
servative. [laughter] One extreme conservative
that I know got set up and took a swing at a guy.
And that was the only real fight that started. Yet
some of the radicals were swinging at cadets that
were driving the cars up to Governor’s Day when
they had them stop in the barricade—you know,
shoving their hands through the windows and
knocking guys' hats off and pushing them and
things like this.

I think both sides would have gotten out of
control if things had gone much farther. But as it
was, during the demonstration, the university
police managed to keep the radicals back far
enough from the cadets that were performing so
they couldn’t get at each other, you know. As long
as you’re at a distance, you can yell back and
forth at each other, but the minute some guy
touches you, it gets out of hand. And this hap¬
pened before the motorcade got to the actual cer¬
emony. But after everybody got up to the cer¬
emony, they were far enough apart that neither
group could, you know, really get in and mix it
up. So it worked out better that way.

How do you feel about academic freedom, both
for professors and for students?

What do you mean by academic freedom?

What in their role as faculty they should be al¬
lowed to do, and what should they be allowed to
participate in, and the same way with students.
What should they, what shouldn't they, partici¬
pate in?

Well, I don’t know. A student should be able
to participate in anything he wants to up there.
Fle’s paying his money to go to school there. And

as far as being active on campus, if there’s some¬
thing going on this campus that’s sanctioned—
fine, let him get in. I don’t feel anybody should
take part in things that are not sanctioned by the
campus for the good of the university. Sure, you
got a right to do whatever you want, supposedly,
but you know, your freedom goes as far as it
doesn’t infringe upon the next person, suppos¬
edly. And the minute it starts infringing upon the
next person, I think you got to draw a line. And
this is where I think the professors and things like
this should be made to stop. Because I know, per¬
sonally, I’ve had professors ....

As a matter of fact, my English teacher was
one of the biggest rabble-rousers in the
Governor’s Day ceremony. I had him when I was
in freshman English, and I thought he was an
extremely good teacher. Fie made me think of
ideas; he brought out, you know, ideas. And I
enjoyed his class very much. Fie gave very inter¬
esting discussions. It was really a discussion pe¬
riod. But later on I heard he got to the point where
if you were conservative, you didn’t have ideas—
you didn’t do anything. You either listened to his
side, or you didn’t get through his class. And this
is where, I think, the line should be drawn as far
as a code of conduct. They’re just trying to set up
there now that a teacher is supposed to stimulate
ideas and bring out ideas and not penalize any¬
body for their own ideas. And I think this hap¬
pens when you start getting the real radical ele¬
ment or the real conservative element. And I know
right now for a fact that we have certain teachers
up there that are so idealistic that if you’re con¬
servative, you can’t get through their classes. It’s
just about that bad.

I had the philosophy teacher up there who is
one of the big teachers they’re supposedly get¬
ting rid of because they don’t have enough funds
for him. Well, when I had him in his class, we did
absolutely nothing. It was another discussion
class, is what it was. Fie let us grade ourselves,
so, naturally, almost everybody got A’s or B’s.
It’d be fine if everybody was idealistic enough to
say, “Well, this guy really didn’t do much, so he
deserves a C or D.” But it didn’t work this way.
“Well, he was here most of the time, or he came a

WILLIAM W. VAT.T.INF.

459

few times, and he contributed an idea here and
there.” How can you grade a person, you know?
And this sort of thing came up. So, as a result,
most everybody got A’s and a few B’s, not very
many C’s. And one D, I think, was all that was
given. But he just let the class run itself. Sure, it
was an easy A. I didn’t mind it. It helped my grade
point. I didn’t have to do a dang thing in the class
except, you know, prepare an outline to hand in—
which was really nothing—on these stories that
we’d read. But he showed up about three times
during the whole semester to our class, and sup¬
posedly with his other class, and he said our group
was pretty good, so he didn’t come to it as much.

But to me, I’m there to be taught. And, you
know, people say you teach yourself, which is
true to a certain extent, but you’ve got to have
guidance. And kids get hung up on the same ideas
or same topics and things like this, and as a re¬
sult, we run around in circles a lot. And I got
very little out of the class. To me, there should be
a line: teachers have to have some line, some re¬
quirements. Not only should they meet educa¬
tional requirements, they should meet standards
of teaching that the normal student might impose.
The teacher evaluation thing I think is really great,
because the students should be considered more
by the administration in their hiring and firing of
teachers up there. Like, I know in the accounting
department, right now because of lack of funds
and accreditation, we have to have so many doc¬
tors in our college, or we don’t get accredited.
They’re getting rid of one of the better teachers
in the school because he isn’t a doctor. But yet he
is one of the better teachers up there, and they’re
keeping a doctor that is just terrible. But you have
to have the accreditation. Well, you see, that’s
fine, but they ought to start looking around for
better teachers, better staff.

And it’s hai'd to say what a teacher should be
allowed to do and what he shouldn’t be allowed
to do. I think the line comes, like I say, when he
starts infringing upon the rights of students. Oth¬
erwise, he should be allowed to do his thing just
as much as the students should up there. Just be¬
cause he’s a teacher, he shouldn’t be penalized.
Too bad they can’t use their own judgment and

know when to stop, but they can’t. So I think there
should be some guidelines of some type set down
for them as well as for students.

Yes. Who do you think should have the say in
whether a student or a faculty member is dis¬
missed for, you know, reasons?

I think the Board of Regents, as well as any¬
body. The students governing themselves ....
Kids tend to be, in some cases, harder on them¬
selves, in some cases more liberal. Right now I
think the students on our campus are afraid to do
anything. With one case we had this year with a
Negro and so forth, I think people were afraid to
do anything because they were afraid of the re¬
percussions of what the Black Student Union
might do. And I think you need somebody that is
maybe not so centralized in the campus to handle
these matters, as, you know, when things become
violent or things like this.

As far as the faculty goes, I think the stu¬
dents should be able to evaluate their teachers
and so forth, and I think these evaluations should
be given some weight. But I think, at the same
time, the administration and Board of Regents
should look into the faculty and be able to decide
who is good and who is bad. They do the hiring
and firing; you know, it’s the people of the state
that pay the taxes, and these people are appointed
and elected and so forth. I think it’s their job,
more or less, to supervise the faculty as well as
the department head.

But I think the teachers should definitely be
interviewed a little closer than they are right now.
It just goes out: we need a psychology teacher, or
we need an accounting teacher. The guy applies,
and whoever’s got the most credentials gets it. I
think there’s very little personal contact or inter¬
view. I don’t know this for a fact, but from the
people I’ve seen that have gotten into these de¬
partments, it seems to be this way. There doesn’t
seem to be, you know, a lot of (what do you say?)
the exploration, maybe, into the personal qualifi¬
cations as well as the academics of the people
they’re hiring.

460

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

What kind of personal qualifications? I know it’s
kind of hard to, you know, make a generaliza¬
tion. But what good does a personal interview,
say, accomplish on a campus like the Reno cam¬
pus?

I think personal interviews would serve to
keep out the extreme radicals and the extreme
conservatives, which I don’t think are good for
any campus, because students, no matter how
strong—one way or the other—are influenced by
their teachers. To me, there’s no doubt about this.
You spend a semester with a person, or a year,
and you begin to think, in certain respects, maybe,
as they do. You absorb certain of their ideas.
You’re exposed to other ideas, and, naturally, if a
person is strong enough, he can influence you to
his line of thinking. I think this is dangerous on
the conservative element, as well as the radical
element. I think your middle-roaders are the best
teachers, because they’ll listen to both sides,
they’ll give their opinions, and they’re not just
hung up on one idea, where your extreme radical
or your extreme conservative is. And I think it’s
easy to spot one with any brains at all, especially
in an interview when you talk to a person about
his opinion, because you can just bring up an idea,
and if the guy’s an extreme conservative or radi¬
cal, he’s not going to change his mind. I think
there should be an appeals board or something
where students can come in, you know, and ap¬
peal things as to where the teachers are, and when
they’re wrong, or, you know, extremely wrong.

I’ve known kids that say, “I flunked the class
because I just didn’t, you know, kiss up to him
enough.” And I mean, it’s extremely wrong. But
like you say, it’s hard to generalize what would
make a good teacher or what would be a good
personal interview. It’s a hard thing to do when
there’s no set answer. But I think maybe the per¬
sonal contact and trying to find out, to look into
the guy’s extreme background. Some of these
teachers I know have been at four or five differ¬
ent campuses in four or five different years—well,
there’s something wrong with the guy.

He moved around too much, you know. In¬
vestigate this sort of thing and have a personal

interview with him. And maybe elect a student
body—yes, a board of some kind that could sit in
on these interviews and give their opinions of the
teachers. This all runs into money and funding
and things like this, but I think it might help the
university.

Where do you think the peace movement is head¬
ing right now in the Reno area?

Well, I think the peace movement’s on its way
out like a lot of other things that seem to be a fad
right now. Everybody was up on the peace move¬
ment for awhile; it was the thing to do to go to
the demonstrations and things. But in the Reno
area, after the big Governor’s Day movement, it
was a very small turnout the next day when they
were going to have everybody cut classes and go
to the moratorium and nobody go to classes in
memorial of the Kent State students and moving
into Cambodia—and all this stuff, you know. Ev¬
erybody went to classes as normal almost. And I
think a lot of the younger kids now are realizing
maybe it’s not the big thing to do anymore, and
as a result, I don’t think the real radical or the
real conservatives are getting the support that
they’d like to have. I think a lot of people go more
out of curiosity than to support the rallies as such.
And I think they’re on their way out.

Yes. How do you think that a teacher or a student
can be effective politically, or should they?

Oh, I think everybody should be effective
politically. I think the first place to start is to know
what you’re talking about. So many ideas are shot
around nowadays that nobody is really informed
about. They’re just big ‘“guesstimates,” you know:
‘"Oh, I heard . . . .” or ‘‘Somebody, so-and-so, told
me this . . . .” And nobody really knows for sure.
You give them a concrete fact, and they go, ‘‘Oh,
really?” just like they didn’t know what was go¬
ing on.

I think people should become well informed
about the subject, as well informed as possible.
And this does not mean to believe everything you
read, because a lot of what you read anymore is

WILLIAM W. VAT.I.INF.

461

so slanted that you can’t believe it, anyway. And
become active in your group—political groups,
you know. If you're against somebody, get active
in an organization, get active in your political
group, in a political party of some kind, and get
your candidate in, rather than go out and riot and
say, “This guy is terrible. He’s rotten,” and all
this stuff. This is fine, you know, but you don’t
accomplish anything. You’re not actually going
against the man. You give yourself more of a bad
name than you do him half the time. In other
words, I think people should work through party
channels in expressing their ideas. Be active po¬
litically as much as possible. I think it’s good,
you know.

Yes. Do you have any other comments that you ’cl
like to make?

No, not really. You covered almost all the
questions.

[laughter] OK.

David W. Watson

June 3, 1970

To start off the interview, why don’t you give your
name, your home town, and your major and class.

I’m Dave Watson. I’m from here in Reno,
and I’ve lived here all my life. My major is pre-
med, and I’ve been accepted at the University of
Oregon in Portland, where I’ll attend the next four
years.

Good. OK. And why do you think you were cho¬
sen to be interviewed?

Probably the main reason is that during the
Governor’s Day ceremonies I was given an award
by the Nevada State Medical Association as a
pre-medical student in ROTC.

And what was your own personal reaction to
President Nixon’s decision to move troops into
Cambodia ?

I think that this was perfectly in line with what
he had said. His plan was to remove the Poops
from the Vietnam area as soon as possible. And I
think that he has proven his point in that the rea¬

son for going into Cambodia was to seize arms
and food and so forth, and this is what he’s done
so far. I feel that the movement into Cambodia
has shown that there were great stores and sanc¬
tuaries in this area, and this was his described
puipose. I think that as long as he follows this,
my reactions are favorable.

Yes. OK. In what way do you think the Cambodia
decision was related to what happened next on
the University of Nevada, Reno, campus?

Well, I think that many people interpreted this
as extending the war into all of Indochina. But as
far as I’m concerned, the war has existed in
Indochina, but up until this time it’s been sort of
a free run for the North Vietnamese and the
Vietcong. Until this time this was a sanctuary
where they could go, and there was no retalia¬
tion. But I think that the reaction was a feeling
that, “Here we are. We’re getting further, or more
and more, involved in Vietnam.”

Yes. Yes. And what was your reaction to events in
other parts of the country related to the Cambo¬
dian decision—the tragedy at Kent State and
Jackson and so forth?

464

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, I think that many of these, such as the
incident at Kent State, from my own personal
feeling, it’s rather hard to blame directly Presi¬
dent Nixon’s decision to go into Cambodia for
the events that happened there. However, I think
this was sort of (you might say) the straw that
broke the camel’s back. It made people feel that
this was the time to do something before we went
any further. But I don’t think we can really judge
the things that happened there, pro or con, as hav¬
ing their effect upon the war itself.

I think the plan is pretty well put forward.
We can’t change what the president has decided
to do, but I do feel that of these students who
were shot at Kent State, some of these people—
maybe all four of them—were only bystanders. I
don’t feel that those people involved are people
that are directly for one side or the other. I think
it’s just like the senate meeting on this campus
the Wednesday after Governor’s Day. There was
a few people that were for the peace movement
and a few people that were . . . well, the cowboys
and the Sundowners. And the rest of the people
were pretty much in the middle. And I think that
maybe this Cambodian incident has more or less
helped to polarize people. But other than that it
hasn’t really changed many people’s feelings,
other than maybe pushing them a little bit one
way or the other.

Yes. Regarding the Governor’s Day activity on
this campus, what did you think of the arrange¬
ments made for the obsen’ances?

Well, I mean, this is traditional. This has hap¬
pened here for forty-some years. This is an ob¬
servance in accordance with the ROTC program,
which, as we know, has been set up at this uni¬
versity, because it’s a land grant college, and this
goes along with the laws whereby it was set up to
be a land grant college, that there would be this
program to go along with it. And so this is just an
observance that was set up. I think that as far as
the observance, it was set up as it should go forth.
There was proper security there and so forth—I
mean, maybe even more so, knowing that the
demonstration was going to take place. I noticed

more police officers than any year before. This is
the fourth year that I’ve been there.

But other than that, I think it was just a nor¬
mal function. Anything out of the ordinary I
would say it was not. Just as a football game, I
mean, there’s arrangements made for these, and
we play certain schools every year. This was just
another function, just as graduation will be an¬
other function.

Well, and what was your reaction to the demon¬
stration that erupted?

The first part of it I had nothing against. And,
in fact, this to me is a freedom that everyone
should have. If they felt they should demonstrate,
this is fine. And as far as coming in, marching
around, singing the songs as they did—“Give
Peace a Chance” and so forth—I think this was
fine, and the point was well taken. But I think
where the demonstrators overlooked the point was
when the ceremonies, as they were supposed to
go on, started to begin, and they began to heckle.
At the same time, I think, that this was really de¬
feating the thing for which they really fought, and
this was the freedom to express the way that you
felt.

I think that President Miller had agreed—and
it was very obvious that he had agreed with
them—that they could have their demonstration
during the time that was really reserved for the
ROTC. I mean, it’s just like the gymnasium. If
it’s reserved for a basketball game, and these
people would have come in. I’m pretty sure un¬
der the law that they could be arrested for this.
But President Miller agreed: “Fine, you have your
demonstration. Get your point across, and then
let the ceremonies go forth.” And from what I
understand, most of the leaders of this peace
movement agreed that this would be the way that
it would be. They would express their point
through their demonstration, and then this would
be their sort of fair shake at it.

But it went a little further than this. And I
think this is where these people hurt themselves.
I think if you took a poll of the cadets that were
standing out there, 95 percent of them are for

DAVID W. WATSON

465

peace. But, I mean, where do we draw the line?
Do we wait until it’s too late? I mean, myself,
I'm a rather conservative person, and I feel that
there are certain stands that we have to take in
the world, or we’re going to end up, you know,
right here on our front doorstep very quick.

Yes. What do you think was the most effective
part of either the demonstration or observances?

I would say the thing that stood out most in
my mind was the fact that even though these dem¬
onstrators were heckling and so forth, most of
the people who were participating—including the
dignitaries who were there to give awards or who
were there as matter of a military function—none
of them really lost their cool, including the ca¬
dets. As was noticed, not one cadet moved from
there. And I think that this was the thing that
showed the difference between the two. I mean,
even though they were being heckled and so forth,
the cadets kept their cool and showed their disci¬
pline, while the people who were in this demon¬
stration really showed no one direction. I mean,
they were sort of mixed in what they were trying
to prove. Some of them were saying, “Well, we’ll
stop here,” and others saying, “Oh, this isn’t
enough.” But this was the thing that really stood
out in my mind.

What should have been the reaction ?

You mean of the military?

Well, you can take it from the ROTC point of view,
if you want to, or... .

Well, I think the ROTC and the military, in
general, and the police reacted in the best way
they could at this time to prevent any further vio¬
lence. If the students who were demonstrating for
peace would have had their demonstration and
then sat in the stands or left—either one—but at
the same time let the ceremony go on as it was to
go on, then I think they would have made their
point.

Yes. OK. Do you have any more to say on that
subject?

Well, nothing more than the fact that, to me,
ROTC .... Myself, I will probably never be in a
combat situation. I plan on going in the military
to do an internship and then to do a year’s resi¬
dence. And for me it offers several advantages,
and I think this is the way that most of the fel¬
lows that are in ROTC look upon it. It’s making
the best of a bad deal. I mean, we’re all stuck
with the job. I mean, President Johnson got us
well committed; we’re going to be there for a
while one way or another. We can’t pull out to¬
morrow. I mean, economically or even physically,
it’s an impossibility. But I think most of us that
are in ROTC look at it this way: that we’re mak¬
ing the best out of a bad job.

And if you have to go, why not go where
you’re going to have a little seniority and make
about four times as much pay? Why not?

OK. Then what was your reaction to the violence
that followed Governor’s Day—the bombings of
first the ROTC building and then the Hobbit
Hole?

Well, from the information that I have and
through my friends, from what I can understand,
the bombing on the Hobbit Hole was done com¬
pletely outside of the groups that were being di¬
rectly harassed. In other words, it wasn’t the
ROTC retaliating for something that they felt the
peace movement did, because most of the ROTC
fellows felt that this was not people in the peace
movement, but probably people that are a little
more radical than that, say, maybe the SDS, the
Weathermen of the SDS, or something like that.
That it was somebody from the outside trying to
stir up a little violence, as is the usual case. And
I think the retaliation was more or less the same
thing; it was somebody who was really an out¬
sider as to the events which had taken place.

Yes. Well, that kind of answers this next one. We’ve
been asking what category of participant — stu-

466

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

dent, faculty, or outsider—was the most effective
in fomenting this violence. And you’ve spoken to
that. You want to add anything?

No. I just feel that this is usually the case
that (as I expressed before) in these peace rallies,
I would say maybe 10 to 15 percent—no more
than that—are really hard-core people that are
for this. The rest of the people are observers that
are somewhere between being that and being a
complete hawk. And I don’t think there’s very
many people that are really complete hawks. If
they are, they feel that it’s only out of necessity
to protect what we have.

Yes. Well, then, what actions do you feel were most
effective in preventing more violence or in cool¬
ing off the situation that developed after these
bombings?

Well, I think one of the things was the con¬
duct of those who are in positions of leadership
in the military itself. Myself, I know personally
that, let’s see, Colonel Hill and Major Springer
and Captain Gartenberg and some other members
of the cadre up at the ROTC came to the senate
meetings that Wednesday night and also came to
the service Friday afternoon that was held for the
students that were killed at Kent State. And I think
this was one thing to show that, you know, these
people have feelings, too, that they don’t feel that
the answer is war, but that we’re in it, and we
might as well do our job and get out as quick as
we can.

Yes. OK. How do you think events on campus af¬
fect the university’s image with outsiders?

Well, I think generally that outsiders overre¬
act to these incidents. I think an excellent example
was Senator Lamb’s opinion. I think that this was
ridiculous, this big threat: that if there are any
more of these movements or so forth on campus,
this could be a direct threat to the funds which
will be given to the university. I think any man
that makes this statement... all he’s trying to do
is to make a little show for the public. And in my

opinion he ought to be glad of the events which
have taken their course here on this campus. I
think that they have helped this campus become
more of an active campus than it was before, be¬
cause I’ve come to some of the senate meetings
before, when there would be maybe thirty or forty
people other than the senators themselves. And
after this incident took place, that place was so
crowded, you couldn’t even get in. I think that
these people ought to wake up and see that things
like this, if they’re kept in a controlled manner,
help to stimulate the student on campus to be
something other than just a machine for learn¬
ing, as so many times he’s really taught to be.

Yes. That leads into this next question beautifully.
What function should the university have in fo¬
cusing public opinion?

Well, I think that the university’s function,
as far as focusing public opinion, is to educate
those people who go to school to be active in so¬
cial events on campus and in functions on cam¬
pus outside those that are directly related to the
classroom. And so, to so many people, this is the
only function they have. Sometimes this is their
own choosing, but sometimes it’s a matter that
they work on the side, and they don’t have a
chance to participate in these things. But so many
times it’s just the opposite. The student is really
never invited or never has given that spark that
gives them some kind of influence to invite them
into activities, other than just studying or social¬
izing at parties and such, and never really directly
related to the politics or the running of the cam¬
pus that is given to the students. And I feel that
on this campus the students probably have a
greater say than on the majority of campuses in
the United States.

And do you feel that the issues of academic free¬
dom are involved in participation in demonstra¬
tions?

Academic freedom as far as it relates to out¬
side of the classroom and the feelings of the indi¬
vidual towards his society, but I think here again

DAVID W. WATSON

467

we have to consider the point of the faculty. I
think this is fine that they do take an active paid,
but sometimes I think that they could be leaders
in one direction, and sometimes they aren’t. And
I make this reference to Mr. Adamian and others
who were in this movement, in the peace move¬
ment, in the parade itself. I think they could have
curbed some of the things that happened—I re¬
ally do—such as what took place on the football
field itself during the drill. If they were really
coordinating this to be a demonstration for a cer¬
tain purpose, they would have known that the drill
was to take place on the field. And, in fact, some
of it was changed at the last part of the drill there.
The Sierra Guardsmen with their bayonets would
have marched right through that group of people
had it not been changed.

It must have been strained.

So, I mean, if these people were really lead¬
ing these people in a direction to avoid violence,
if their purpose was peace, and this was the way
they wanted to demonstrate for it, then they would
have really hied to avoid this direct contact, which
would have meant violence had it happened.

And somebody had to back down. In this case
it was Mr. Blink, who was leading the Sierra
Guard. He just marched them the other way, but
this could have been a little nasty.

To get back to effective politics, how do you think
that students can be effective politically? Should
they attempt to influence political or government
policies?

Well, most government policies are spelled
out from the top down. They tell us the way that
it should be, and we’re supposed to conform. And
as we see in our society, the only way that many
people feel that we’ll have this change is through
these demonstrations, et cetera. I feel that maybe
our energies could be a little better spent if we
were to push more for political organizations on
campus, activity in these, whether this be good
or bad in some respects. I think that perhaps

maybe the Young Republicans and the Young
Democrats and even the American Independent
Party should take advantage of the situation and
have meetings and functions that would get some
of these people interested in politics.

I feel that there is almost like a ten-year gap
from the time that you leave the home which
you’re in until the time that you graduate from
college and are established in a business posi¬
tion. You really take no active paid in politics as a
whole, as an average student. Of course, there
are some people who automatically become in¬
terested in politics through their major in college
or through other means—maybe through a friend
or because their father is directly holding some
legislative or government position. But, other¬
wise, most people do not have a direct contact
with politics, as our American frame of govern¬
ment is. And I feel that if more people were in¬
troduced to this, that maybe we could staid at the
bottom of the party itself or of certain groups to
institute changes, rather than to tty to do them
through this radical, on-the-spot sort of thing.

I think these radical demonstrations, as they
have been, are only tending to polarize people in
one direction or the other. Now, we have the (what
should we call it?) the introduction of the hard
hats now. This is going to be sort of the other
way. And it just shows that society is polarizing.
And like Governor Wallace said, this term that
the newspaper reporters and so forth, the jour¬
nalists, have come up with, this “white backlash”
in the civil rights, I think we’re seeing this in other
fields. Even with this peace movement and things
like this, not only is the backlash getting a little
stronger, but it’s tending to start to divide people
one way or the other. Where most of the
people . . . just like the old rule: we’re the silent
majority, we sit in the middle and usually don’t
really commit ourselves unless we really have to.
And it’s getting down to the point that people are
really having to commit themselves one way or
the other. You can’t stand in the middle anymore.

OK. Have you noticed where the peace movemen t
in this area is headed?

468

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

To me, the peace movement is an expression
of some people who for various reasons want
peace, and they want it now. I think that I could
safely say 90 percent of the people in this coun¬
try want peace, and they want it as soon as pos¬
sible. But I think that many of them realize, such
as our commitment in Vietnam, we can’t just pull
out today. We got in there maybe under wrong
pretenses. Who’s to say? But we’re there now.
And the point is, let’s get out as soon as we can
and make it as worthwhile as possible.

We’ve definitely found out we’re not there
to fight to win—not to win a physical war with
American arms and American men. And if our
purpose is, as President Johnson said, to preserve
the freedom of the South Vietnamese, well, let’s
give them their chance and get out. Let’s do the
best that we can for the time being, and then see
if this is what the people really want.

I think we’ve given them as much of a chance
as possible, and this was our puipose for being
there. Now it’s up to the people to determine their
own course in history. We can’t really say that; I
mean, they’ve been trodden under by another
power. I think we’ve done as much as we can to
help these people, and let the course of events be
what they may.

Are there any other comments you ’d like to make ?

Not really, other than that I think that it’s
helped to awaken many of the students on this
campus. The only thing that bothers me about
these demonstrations and so forth is the fact that
many times these demonstrations which take
place on college campuses involve many people
who are not part of the college community itself.
In the group of demonstrators I noticed many of
my friends were dropouts, number one, some of
them who were still high school kids in that group,
and people like this.

I mean, good and well that they want to dem¬
onstrate, but as far as coming up here and dem¬
onstrating against a college function, which they
really had no paid of at that time, this is just sort
of bringing the outside in. “Let’s make our num¬

bers look real good even if they aren’t really un¬
derstanding what’s going on.” And this is a point
that a lot of my friends talked about after it was
over, that they noticed this, too. Even pro and
con, they noticed that a lot of the kids in there
were not really kids of this campus. In fact, some
of the kids were just kids who were passing
through town and had nothing better to do, so
they’ll join in the demonstration.

But the thing that I was glad to see that came
out of it was that it did wake up some of the stu¬
dents on campus to the fact that if they want a
real voice in what goes on in campus politics,
they’re going to have to speak up and to make
known to those people who represent them—
namely, the senate of the university—that they’re
going to have to make a manifestation in some
way to these people their own feelings, whether
it be a majority of them, or whether only a few of
them have the same consensus over some issue.
If they do express it, then their representative on
campus knows.

And up until now the so-called peace move¬
ment more or less had their way, because they
were the only group that would come and pres¬
sure the senate when it met. And this I was really
glad to see, that some of the other students .... I
mean, let’s say, maybe 150 to 200 of these peace
demonstrator-type people were running that sen¬
ate, really having their way in a lot of things. And
here the other 6,000 students on campus were just
silently sitting back, and everything was just
fine—until it comes to a point where they have
to take one side or another. Then, many of them
take the other side, because they’re aroused a little
bit. I mean, most of the people were still in the
middle, maybe a little bit to the side opposite of
the peace people, but then you got this little radi¬
cal element of, well, sort of the cowboys and the
Sundowners, which were really at the other end.
I mean, they were ready to do battle with them.

And this was really the thing that some of
the people on this campus prevented, one being
Lou Test. He personally went over and spoke to
the aggies and calmed them down a little bit and
just pointed out to them that this really isn’t go-

DAVID W. WATSON

469

ing to solve anything. This is what the people on
the outside want: a little violence in here, with,
you know, a little newspaper commentary on it
and so forth, but it really doesn’t serve the pur¬
pose of what this was for.

And the only other thing that really bothered
me about the whole thing that took place over
Governor’s Day was the fact that many of the
people that were in this peace movement—that
were directly related in the senate or were senate
members themselves—were really pushing for
this: that we should have classes out on Friday in
remembrance of the four people that were killed
at Kent State. But on the same hand it was those
same people and that same group that sat up in
the stands and played taps while Mr. and Mrs.
Wishham came out to give an award that they
were giving in honor of their son, who was an
ROTC graduate who had been killed in Vietnam
in combat.

To me this is very contradictory. It leaves me
in the position that I want peace; I’d like to see
us out of Vietnam. And I’d like to see us in a
position where, through our own use of the posi¬
tion of strength that we have in the world, we can
prevent ourselves from getting in positions like
this—but at the same time that we can keep peace
by keeping power. This is the only thing that we
can do now. I mean, the Russians and the eastern
bloc have made it very clear that this is the only
thing we can do—keeping our power out—then
this is really the only thing that we have. We can
threaten, if we have to put it in those terms. This
is really what we usually do. Usually we nicely
say that this is the way it is, and if someone goes
different, then we use a tactic to push them a little
bit our way.

But this is the thing that really bothered me:
that these four people at Kent State are so sig¬
nificant, but yet for the one person who is really
closer to them and who maybe some of them
knew, they can almost humiliate his parents. And
this is the one thing that really bothered me more
than anything out of the whole display of this
thing for peace. They were talking about all these
people that have been killed in Vietnam and how

important they were. You know, they’d given their
lives, and these people in these peace movements
had, also. And this is the thing that really both¬
ered me.

Myself, I’d have hated to have been in the
spot that one of those National Guardsmen had
been in at Kent State. I mean, we don’t really
know the circumstances that surrounded that.
Ballistics have shown that one out of the ten bul¬
lets that was fired was not an army bullet. So
whether that was the first shot or the last shot
fired or where it came, we don’t know. But as far
as the real situation, what position would we have
been in if we’d been one of those National
Guardsmen? They were there; they were ordered
to do a specific job; they were given ammuni¬
tion. The people that are responsible for their ac¬
tions are the people who are commanding them,
that gave them this ammunition. But at the same
time they were put in a very hard position to make
a decision. And at that time maybe they wouldn’t
have acted or reacted as they did if the position
had been a little bit different, but here they were.

I don’t really know what took place. I mean,
the press gives three or four different pictures.
From what I understand, bottles were being
thrown at them, bricks were being thrown at them.
There was a large group of people gathered
around. From the violence that’s taken place on
campuses in this country, very likely one of those
bottles may have been a Molotov cocktail and
killed thirty or forty of the guardsmen. What po¬
sition would I have been in if I would have been
in the guard, and with the guardsmen, I’d hate to
say.

Oh, but they were apparently doing a job that
they didn’t like doing any better than maybe the
people that are fighting in Vietnam. But they were
doing it because someone had to do it; otherwise,
maybe the whole campus at Kent State would
have been burned down, as we’ve seen buildings
on other campuses burned. So it leaves us in an
unfortunate position.

The only thing that I would hope for is to see
movements on campuses that were directed in
more of a constructive position. I mean, we saw

470

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

this big thing over Earth Day, but to my knowl¬
edge, I saw no one on this campus or read of no
one on any other campus taking and going out
and, say, gathering garbage along the side of the
road or doing things like this to help maybe clean
up our environment, however little it may have
been. I mean, just out of a fact, we know that
there’s a cubic yard of garbage distributed along
every mile of highway every year in this country.
And maybe just three or four hundred students,
covering maybe ten or fifteen miles of road, could
have cleaned up a lot of garbage. But, instead,
they turn around and do things like burying a
brand-new car, which to me proves exactly noth¬
ing, other than they just wasted four thousand
dollars. But things like this ....

If these energies could be put in a little bit
more of a constructive direction, to do something
that would benefit people, even if it was to go
into the ghettos and maybe help someone there
that they knew or someone’s family, I think things
that would be constructive like this would be far
better than going out and demonstrating, as is
usually the case. And all it does mainly is entice
people to watch the demonstrations. Usually,
they’re not part of the demonstrations. And as
far as I can tell, it’s just sort of another activity
with a few people leading it that gets a big crowd.
Like these rock concerts—it’s the same thing.
There’s a few people there entertaining, and ev¬
erybody goes there for a different reason: some
people for drugs, some people to listen to the
music, and some people just to get away from
the rest of society.

And the peace movement has sort of taken
on this connotation to me, because it really, to
me, puts forth no one real distinct goal, and no
one person is really leading it in any one direc¬
tion. And it seems to just be a mass of things
which people are striving for, but which a lot of
people feel that they would rather not be involved
with, because they feel that, personally, they can
seek these things by themselves in a far better
way.

Brian Whalen

May 26, 1970

My home is 1850 Royal Drive, Reno, Ne¬
vada. I’m the plant engineer at the University of
Nevada.

Why do you think you were chosen to be inter¬
viewed?

Perhaps, because I’m the plant engineer,
[laughter]

What was your reaction to President Nixon’s de¬
cision to move troops into Cambodia?

Oh, I wasn’t surprised. I thought that if it
would help the war, why, it was a good decision—
because I don’t see any sense in letting people sit
back in sanctuaries and take shots at you, although
I expected it might cause some stir here, or in the
United States from the . . . call it the liberal group,
if you want.

In what way do you think that this Cambodia de¬
cision was related to what happened next on the
UNR campus?

I don’t know if the Cambodian thing was too
much related. From the time of the year—the
springtime—with ROTC day coming up, I think
that with the protestors coming along, they were
going to protest something anyway. And I think
this just gave them a real good thing to get a lot
of other people involved in their protest.

Yes. What was your reaction to the events in other
parts of the country related to the Cambodian
decision: Kent State and other campuses.

Well, like everyone else I was real unhappy
about the Kent State thing, where people did get
killed. I think that when you have a situation so
far along you’ve got to call the national guard,
you’re going to have something bad happen, one
way or another.

Regarding the Governor’s Day activities here on
campus: what did you think of the arrangements
made for the observances?

Well, they had the stadium reserved for the
ROTC people. They had Manzanita Bowl re¬
served for the other people, as they did last year.

472

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Brian Whalen, 1979.

and everything seemed to work out fine. I fully
anticipated that the demonstrators wouldn’t stay
in that area. We had information through the uni¬
versity police that they weren’t going to stay in
that area. And I think this pretty well follows.
About three years ago, they had their little pro¬
test in front of the stands. . . in front of the sta¬
dium outside the gates, where they marched
around and had their picket line—and that was
fine. Last year, they had a protest at the same time
as ROTC. to prove they could draw more people.
And I think it just naturally follows that these
types of things are going to go one step further
each time. And I think this demonstration was
their one step further.

What was your reaction to the demonstration ?

[laughter] First. I was disappointed that
they—the demonstrator group—didn’t stay in the
bowl area. Second, when they stopped the mo¬
torcade in front of the union and caused a ruckus,
I thought perhaps that was going to be the end of

it. I hoped it would. Then, when they got to the
stadium .... I was a little bit late getting to the
stadium for things. I had to take care of down
here. When I got there, I really couldn’t believe
it. In fact, I was so upset I wrote a letter to the
governor apologizing for the actions of the dem¬
onstrator group toward him and the platform
group and the ROTC people. And you can get a
copy of that (I don’t have a copy here) and then a
copy of the governor’s reply, if you want. Fie sent
a nice letter back, stating I didn’t have to apolo¬
gize because he realized this wasn’t the
university’s function; it was a group of demon¬
strator types, numbering about 300. Fie didn’t feel
the others should be judged on this. And he wasn’t
going to judge them because of this.

But in my letter, I told him that I’d been in
this state since 1932. Of course, I was quite young
then, [laughter] and I’d been on the university
campus as a professional faculty-staff member
since 1958, and this was the most disgraceful
thing I had ever witnessed on this campus. And
those are my sentiments regarding this thing. I
think everybody has a right to dissent, but I think
as soon as you step over somebody else’s line—
where you interfere with their right to put on their
program—then I think you’re out of line. I think
these people are out of line.

Yes. And you didn ’t feel that it was necessary,
yourself to participate in any of the demonstra¬
tions or activities?

No. I’ve talked to several people since who’ve
felt that a demonstration and marching around
the track one time—things like that—were fine,
but they felt they really got out of line in their
catcalling, raising the peace sign instead of sa¬
luting the flag, and “seig heil”-ing the general up
there, instead of just letting him be introduced. I
think probably the most disgraceful thing I’ve
ever witnessed was the playing of taps by a dem¬
onstrator when the Wisham family was giving the
award in memory of their son who was killed in
Vietnam. I think this is just absolutely terrible.
And I’ve written to the people who are investi-

BRIAN WHALEN

473

gating the demonstration from the university
standpoint and asked that this particular student
be investigated, because he’s been identified. (Just
like I think you have a right to come around and
ask any questions you want, I have a right to an¬
swer any I want, but I don’t think it’s right for
anybody to come in here and say, “She can’t in¬
terview you.”)

And I think it got out of hand up there. You
talk to the people who were setting it all up, and
they felt they could control them. They could
make one pass of the track, then they’d sit in the
stands and let the thing go on. They didn’t real¬
ize there was going to be this catcalling. They
didn’t realize they’d be giving the governor the
finger as they went by, in their group. This is com¬
pletely out of . . . this gets into a mob situation,
instead of a demonstrator situation. And that’s
where that one got.

Yes. What do you think should have been the re¬
action of the ROTC and the demonstrators and
the university administrators to this conflict that
developed?

I don’t know whether the reaction could be
any better than it was. The ROTC people really
contained themselves quite well, for the insults
that were being given to them. For the adminis¬
tration, at that point, to do anything more than
they did, I think, would have been a mistake. It
would have caused a worse situation than they
actually had. I think perhaps a policy of not let¬
ting the protest demonstrators inside the stadium
(do all they want outside, like three years ago
when there was a restriction)—if they had done
that, maybe it would have solved it, maybe it
wouldn’t. It’s all hindsight.

Actually, I was very disappointed in the dem¬
onstrating group, because I think they had some¬
thing very real to demonstrate, and a lot of them
felt very strongly and very sincere about. I think
the way it got out of hand sort of ruined it for the
people who were sincere, which is unfortunate.

What was your reaction to the violence that
followed Governor’s Day: the firing of

Hartman Hcdl and the bombing of the Hobbit
Hole?

Oh, I’m involved with the university police,
and we were expecting Hartman Hall or Clark
Administration or Morrill Hall to get firebombed
by somebody. And they may never find out who
it is, but I think that if they ever do, you’ll find
out it wasn’t students from this campus. I think
you can trace it all over this country: that your
general big problems are a group of hardcore
troublemakers who come in to take advantage of
these situations. Now, whether they’re from off
campus or out of town, I think is immaterial. I
think it’s the fact that they’re coming in, and
they’re taking advantage of an emotional situa¬
tion to run their own ends, or get their own means.
And I think you’ll find, if it ever comes out, that
this was done by some outsiders, and then to keep
the flames fanned they threw one over here—
somebody did. They’ll find out. I’m sure, some¬
body who did it, probably, but I feel there’s no
place for it anywhere. I don’t think it’s students
from this campus, per se, doing that kind of thing,
or from any other campus, unless they get emo¬
tionally charged in the situation.

Well what category of participant — student, fac¬
ulty, or outsider—do you feel was most effective
in fomenting this violence? You have talked
about ....

Oh, I think the outsider. I think the situation
was there where the kids would have gone up
and marched through on the track, and they may
have said some things, but I think if we hadn’t
had the outsiders in ... . And I can identify three
of the outsiders who were at the student rap ses¬
sion the next afternoon after this, where the stu¬
dent USA group (the United Student Alliance)
was discussing how well their demonstration
came off. I think some of the university students—
that I can identify—felt that they had really made
a point. They had disrupted things, perhaps more
than they wanted to; however, they felt they had
a foot in the door. The super-agitator types were
up there harping about Hartman Hall still stand-

474

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

ing and the administration building still stand¬
ing. These were non-campus people who were
saying these things.

What actions do you feel were most effective in
preventing more violence, or in cooling off the
situation that developed in the long run?

I think right at the time, the action of not hav¬
ing the police jump in probably stopped anything
worse than did happen, because basically what
happened was vulgar language and insults and
disrespect, but there wasn’t any physical violence,
so to speak. (Although one guy by the union was
clonked on the head, I guess. But anytime you
get a crowd that big somebody’s going to get
clonked anyway.) But I think just the fact that
they didn’t panic from the administration end, and
they didn’t panic from the ROTC end, and they
fried to show that there are people around with
common sense and dignity: that’s what stopped
it from getting worse then.

I think what stopped it getting worse imme¬
diately thereafter was the fact that the university
took necessary precautions to attempt to stop
things. And with the Hartman Hall firebombing
(in a wooden building that could burn in fifteen
minutes clear to the ground), the police action by
the increased surveillance of that area limited it
to minor damage, say $500 or $600. If that had
burned to the ground, I think the townspeople
reaction and the conservative student reaction
would have really have been great. I think your
legislative reaction, your regent reaction, would
have been something totally different than it was.
But the fact that the precaution was taken ahead
of time, anticipating this, did manage to save that
one. I think the increased patrols which were go¬
ing on all week by the city of Reno and by our
police both caught that fire over there in time. I
think that really helped cool things off.

How do you think that the events on campus af¬
fect the university’s image outside ?

I think they affected them greatly. I don’t
think these events helped the image at all.

Well what function should the university have in
focusing public opinion ?

I think the university should probably prove
that there are places where you can discuss things,
but you don’t necessarily have to ram them down
somebody’s throat. If they want to have two sides
or three sides and have it discussed, that’s fine. I
think that they should be primarily educating
people, which the university’s always stated. Sec¬
ondly, they are in research. I think. And thirdly,
they are in community service. If they can prove
that that’s what they’re doing, and not let these
things get out of hand, the leadership of the stu¬
dents and the leadership of the faculty has got to
be such that when the outsiders come in they rec¬
ognize this, and they don’t allow them in.

Yes. Do you feel that issues of academic freedom
are involved in participation in these demonstra¬
tions?

I don’t think the issues of academic freedom
are involved at all here, because I think academic
freedom is something totally different. I think
maybe if the university would get off their butts
(if I can use the word) and define what academic
freedom is ... . Academic freedom, in my opin¬
ion, is the freedom of expression in the classroom.
It’s not the freedom to do anything you want, any¬
time you want, just because you’re a member of
the university community. I think all of your ba¬
sic laws of society still govern you, but if you
want to teach in your classroom in a certain way,
and if you want to lay out what, say, the commu¬
nist theory is, you should be free to do that, if
you’re teaching political science or if you’re
teaching sociology. If you’re teaching biology, I
don’t think you have any business whatsoever
discussing things like that. If you’re supposed to
be teaching civil engineering, if it has nothing to
do with your area, you shouldn’t be discussing it.

I think your realm of academic freedom is
what you’re allowed to discuss in your discipline,
in your classroom. It’s not what you spout off to
the newspapers downtown, outside the classroom.
And that’s where I think most university people

BRIAN WHALEN

475

have to be very careful. If you’re being identi¬
fied as a member of the university community,
then you have to be careful what you say, and
you couldn’t speak as freely, say, as a bricklayer
who wouldn’t be identified as a spokesman, so
to speak. But I think the academic freedom issue
should be clearly defined, and I don’t think it was
involved here.

How can students and faculty be effective politi¬
cally, or should they attempt to influence gov¬
ernmental policies?

Oh, I think they can be very effective politi¬
cally. And I think they can really influence gov¬
ernmental policy. I think, first, you should go
through the existing mechanisms that we have.
And there are many. I dare say, of the 300 people
in the demonstration, I doubt that a one has ever
written a congressman or an assemblyman. And
this is one way we’ve got. If you only get one
letter, that’s one; if you get 300, they stand up
and take notice. I think they’re finding this out
all over the country. And I think this excuse that
it takes too long . . .I’m not all for that excuse. A
lot of things take time. They talk about patience:
if my father had the patience they’ve got. I’d have
never survived, [laughter]

[laughter] Where do you think the peace move¬
ment is headed in this country?

The peace movement? I think actually be¬
cause of this demonstration in this community,
your peace movement has lost a little steam. But
I think the peace movement is very real, and I
think that the peace movement is going to go
ahead. I think it’s going to go ahead nationally,
too. I think that’s what everybody who really . . .
you can’t get anybody to disagree with you that
we don’t want peace. It’s just how you’re going
to get it and when. On one side you’ve got the
people who don’t think you can do anything about
it; on the other side you’ve got the people who
want to pull out of Vietnam and Cambodia to¬
morrow. Period. Everybody. I think logistically

it’s physically impossible to pull out totally to¬
morrow, but I think we’re going to get out of there.

What other comments do you want to make about
any of this?

Oh, well, I don’t think any other comments. I
think I’ve made enough now. But, I think the
image of the university has been hurt by this situ¬
ation. I think that probably in the future the uni¬
versity will be a little bit better prepared to see
what’s going on and pick out the troublemakers
and probably take action against the troublemak¬
ers at the proper time, which would help the situ¬
ation. I think they’ll probably be a little bit more
receptive to discussing these things in forum-type,
and I think you’ll find perhaps your conservative
people on this campus—and there are a good
number of them, in my opinion—will probably
attend more of these type of discussion things, so
it isn’t all a one-sided discussion, which I think
in the past perhaps sometime it has been.

Mary Ellen Glass, Ruth Hilts,

and Marian Rend all

June 24, 1970

Mary Ellen Glass [G]: So the purpose of this
tape is to tell anyone who wants to use the mate¬
rials that we gathered on the Governor’s Day
activities what went into the program, how it
evolved, and what we think we got out of it. First
of all, I could probably say how we happened to
get into this in the first place. It's been very in¬
teresting to me to read the materials from other
oral history projects where they describe having
interviewed demonstrators and protestors and
dissidents of one sort and another, some who have
described (at least in meetings—I can’t seem to
put my hand on any written sources) having been
out in the middle of a demonstration or a distur¬
bance of some kind with their portable tape re¬
corder, saying, “What’s going on here?” which
is quite interesting, I think, and something that
we might consider doing sometime.

But somehow I hadn’t thought of doing any¬
thing about the Governor’s Day activities until
Mr. Carpenter walked into my office one day and
said, “Well, do you have all this last week on
tape?”

And I said, no, I didn’t.

And he said, “Oh,” and went away.

Well, pretty soon—I’m a little slow—it
seemed to make some sense that we ought to be
doing this. So I drew up a proposal letter and
took it in to show to him. The letter was essen¬
tially, I guess, what we ended up doing, but it
was quite a bit more specific than what we ended
up sending. It was quite a bit more specific on
the critical nature of the events of the past sev¬
eral days.

Well, he agreed that it might be a good idea,
but he wanted me to discuss it with some other
people, including the director of information, who
had been close to the events. And so I made an
appointment with the director of information and
showed it to him. While I was there, President
Miller dropped in, and they discussed it with me,
and both approved the thing, in essence.

There was always, in the background, the
problem of evidence in the legal sense, and this
was something that disturbed me, and it disturbed
everyone that I had sought approval from up to
then. So I brought back to Mr. Carpenter my con¬
cern, and he said that he thought maybe we should
just forget the whole thing until the investiga¬
tion and everything had gone away.

I subsequently had to go to a meeting with
Mr. Morehouse and Mr. Armstrong in Judge

478

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Mary Ellen Glass, c. 1978.

Hyde’s office, and, again, this subject came up
of what we ought to be doing about Governor’s
Day. And at that time Mr. Morehouse and Mr.
Armstrong expressed some disappointment that
we weren’t going to go ahead with this immedi¬
ately while the iron was hot and so forth, and we
sought some comments from Judge Hyde. So
Judge Hyde advised us some on the legal aspects
and suggested some other research on legal as¬
pects. Mr. Morehouse then discussed the prob¬
lem again with Mr. Caipenter, who said that he
would approve the project if we got direct ap¬
proval from President Miller.

Well, we then redrew the letter to indicate
that we were seeking views, opinions, and ob¬
servations, rather than “accounts of an event.”
And this was then approved by Mr. Morehouse
and President Miller. I can’t recall whether Judge
Hyde saw that letter or not.

But then the next steps, which were kind of
interwoven, were to make a list of the people that
we wanted to see, that we knew had been in¬
volved, or that someone else knew had been in¬
volved in one capacity or another, and to draw
up a list of questions: seeking views, opinions,
observations.

Ruth Hilts [H]: Or reactions.

G: Yes, and reactions—all of this sort of thing.
Nothing to indicate evidence, again, because we
certainly didn’t want to be involved in prejudic¬
ing any investigations or leave ourselves open
for any kind of legal action.

While we were still in the process of draw¬
ing up this list of names, we were advised by Mr.
Caipenter, Barbara Thornton, Reverend Dodson,
and the columnists of the Sagebrush , I guess, for
general knowledge on whom we ought to be see¬
ing.

Marian Rendall was in my office one day to
help me draw up the list of questions, and be¬
tween us we did draw up questions, asking for
observations and opinions and reaction. The only
question that we didn’t put on the list at that time
was the one on academic freedom, which I have
found very interesting. Then the list of questions
was approved with minor changes by Mr.
Morehouse. I didn’t submit the list of questions
to Mr. Caipenter, my immediate supervisor, be¬
cause he was one of the people to be interviewed,
and I thought it would be more appropriate not
to.

So that’s the background, just a general out¬
line of how the procedure was set out. I might
say, too, that among all the people that I con¬
sulted and my own feelings on the situation (and
I think I’ve been confirmed in this since), there
was a consensus that the university had come to
a turning point in its history. And maybe we’re
wrong. You can’t always tell when you come to
a turning point. But I am really inclined to think
that it was, in more ways than one, a turning point,
and I wouldn’t say either for better or for worse

GLASS, RENDALL, HILTS

479

at this point, but definitely a change in the direc¬
tion that the university has been taking.

So, with that as background, I think it might
be useful if those of us who have been involved
in the interviewing would discuss, in general
(without naming any names and without discuss¬
ing the contents of the interviews), what you think
you brought to the interviews and what you think
the Oral History Project and University Archives
have gained from it.

Marian Rendall [R]: Well, I noticed, for one
thing—and perhaps it might have been my inex¬
perience as an interviewer—but the people I
talked to seemed a bit reluctant to talk. At first, I
thought maybe it was the fact that they weren’t
sure of what would happen to these tapes after¬
ward. But a lot of them just seemed reluctant to
put their ideas down in such a permanent way.
Whether it was something which could have been
incriminating, as none of them seemed to be, but
whether it was something of that kind that was
bothering them or not, I couldn’t tell. But there
was always sort of a wariness to the approach,
an underlying reluctance to talk, for at least sev¬
eral of them.

G: Yes.

H: Did you indoctrinate them, orient them in any
way before the interview began?

R: Oh, yes.

H: I ask this only because I was afraid of this
sort of reaction, and to overcome this reticence,
I tried to give them a little background on why
the interviews were being held, what was to be
done with the tape, the restriction they could
place on the use if they wished, and then I would
hand them the questions. And I’d say, “Maybe
you’d like to just acquaint yourself with the sort
of thing we’re going to go through. You get your
thoughts in order.” And so they’d read the ques¬
tions, and then, of the nine interviews that I did,
only two people were reticent and expressed
doubts.

R: Yes. One of my interviewees was so reluc¬
tant, in fact, that I took him in to talk to Mrs.
Glass about the whole thing, to set him more at
ease about why he was selected and how he hap¬
pened to be selected, this kind of thing. And then
for one of them, I interpreted it at the time as
wariness, but after the interview was over, I de¬
cided maybe he was reluctant to talk because he
didn’t really know why he was selected, that he
didn’t feel that he had anything of particular im¬
portance to say. And so maybe he was holding
back because he did not feel that he had any¬
thing particular to say. I thought that I had given
a fairly elaborate introduction to all of them about
how the tapes were going to be used and the value
of this thing—the historical project—to the his¬
tory of the university and the community.

G: Well, I seldom handed anyone the questions,
although if they seemed particularly worried
about the content of the project, I would say,
“Well, of course, you may look at the questions
if you want. I mean, we’re seeking your opin¬
ion.”

H: Well, that’s the attitude that I had when I
handed them the questions. I didn’t want them to
be fearful that they were going to be drilled,
[laughter] So we just kind of conversed about
the questions once they were acquainted.

G: Yes. Well, do you feel that you used any par¬
ticular technique in getting people to respond
more fully?

H: I fried deliberately to catch the eyes and keep
them. And I hope I didn’t say, “Mm-hm,” too
often, because I got so excited about what they
were saying, I would agree with them, nod my
head, and I’m afraid it came out, “Mm-hm.”
[laughter] But at any rate, this seemed to elicit a
friendly response, and except for the two that I
mentioned that were reticent, I felt that there was
almost a very, very friendly, open response to the
questions. They may have been more than they
originally intended to, merely because I was open

480

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

mouthed and nodded my head, urging them with
my eyes to come on! [laughter]

R: Right. One in particular that I can think of
became considerably more open after I had made
some comment about a particularly good point
he had made. And this wasn’t an attempt to but¬
ter him up on my part at all. In fact, some of them
made very good points, things that I hadn’t
thought of, and then the naturally reaction would
be, “That’s a great point,” and, “Go ahead and
say some more.” But for the most part, I think
that they were as open as they could be. And I
think most of the ones that I interviewed told all
that they happened to know or, you know, felt
that they could say about the whole incident.

I felt that they were open, but yet there was
that kind of feeling I had that they were either
reluctant about how valuable the project was
going to be and how much they were going to be
able to bring to the project themselves, or they
were wary about what was going to happen to it.
I don’t know which. And I got that impression.

Part of it was just self-confidence. It’s kind
of difficult to go into a room and have somebody
turn the tape on. You never are able to be as ar¬
ticulate as you wish you were afterwards, I think.
And this was bothering them—how good they
came across on tape, compared to how they would
be able to express themselves otherwise.

H: In that respect, I admired the people that I
talked to, the nine that I did interview. I never
met any of them before. We were complete
strangers, and I wondered just how articulate they
could be under these circumstances. I was sur¬
prised at the warmth and the ease with which
most of them spoke.

R: In most cases—in all of the cases of my
interviewees—I had not seen them before, and I
probably will not see them afterwards. And then
it just was limited to that short amount of time.
It’s amazing how well they responded, consider¬
ing that we had not talked to them before. I think
all of my interviews just lasted for one meeting.

Did any of you have ones that lasted more than
one meeting?

H: No. No, I didn’t. Anywhere from forty-five
minutes to an hour was the extent, the standard.

G: Yes, I think my longest one ran two hours,
and I think probably the shortest was, oh, twenty-
five or thirty minutes. I think in both extremes
that was adequate.

But one of the things that we tried very hard
to do (and I think we succeeded quite well) was
to get as broad a spectrum of opinion as we
possibly could. So the names were chosen on the
basis of activities: ROTC, Sundowners, known
conservatives, some of the known leaders, and,
well, I don’t want to say radicals, but that’s close.

H: The leaders of several factions, such as the
black students in the peace movement.

R: Right. The activists—the ones that were most
active on that day.

G: Yes. And this includes both students and pro¬
fessors. I think that we succeeded. I’m not sure
that we did, but I think we succeeded in inter¬
viewing the principals in all the activities—I
mean, the peace demonstration, the ROTC pa¬
rade, and the faculty people on both sides.

H: Some of whom were there, and others who
had been influential beforehand.

R: The names were chosen, weren’t they, as a
result of the school newspaper? And what other
methods were used?

G: Well, we asked people who had been active.
I asked Mr. Carpenter for some names. I asked
Reverend Dodson for some names and, yes, in
the school newspaper. So, as I say, I think we
succeeded.

And I want to say something about the re¬
sponse, too, just in terms of statistics. I think our
response has now run between 70 and 80 per-

GLASS, RENDALL, HILTS

481

cent. We’re not going to interview very many
after this. But as far as just the response. I mean,
just actual physical coming in. I think we should
be able to claim some validity for the survey.

R: Yes. Were there any that were not on this list
that requested to be interviewed?

G: Oh, yes. There was one, and I thought this
was interesting, too. Well, we asked a number of
departments—not as departments, but individu¬
als in departments—to come in, and one of these
departments, of course, had to be the military.
So letters were sent to Colonel Hill, Captain
Gartenberg, and Sergeant Major Barka, all in the
department. One day we had a phone call from
Major Springer, to whom we had not addressed
a request, saying that he had seen the letter to
Colonel Hill and he would like to come in to be
interviewed, which he did. And he gave a very
good, representative interview, I felt.

Subsequently, the secretary in the office, try¬
ing to sort of tie up some loose ends, called the
Military Department and asked if Sergeant Ma¬
jor Barka would come in. That was the first one
on the list, and B comes before H. And the re¬
sponse was, no, the Military Department had been
spoken for with Major Springer’s interview. So
we have to assume that the Military Department
had some kind of a meeting of the minds and felt
that Major Springer was adequate to represent
them, since that’s what we were told. I’m sorry,
personally, that the others didn’t come in. Cap¬
tain Gartenberg came in, but we reached him not
through the department, but at his home, since
he’s also a graduate student.

H: This was the only department on campus that
had a representative of the department, in other
words.

G: Yes.

H: The other ones came in representing only
themselves.

G: Yes, that’s right. So if we reached a number
of people in, say, political science or art or En¬
glish or so forth, it was because they came in
individually. And I thought that that was inter¬
esting, although, as I say, I was personally disap¬
pointed, because I was hoping that we’d get per¬
sonal expression, rather than departmental ex¬
pressions, from these people.

H: Since you did most of the interviewing, did
you come to any feeling of consensus, or did you
find that there was a great lack of it?

G: Well, there is more or less of a consensus,
although it... . Well, I should preface that, I
guess, by saying that we did try to get, again, as
many views and opinions from as many points
as we possibly could. So, obviously, you’re not
going to have a full consensus. That was the pur¬
pose of the project: it was not to have a consen¬
sus. But I would say that if there is any, from the
number of times people said to me, “I deplore
violence, but . . . ,” or, “I deplore violence,
and . . . ,” there is no agreement from left to right
that there was any violence on the campus.

There are people on the right who think that
what happened up at the stadium was violence.
There are people on the left who think that the
burning of the ROTC building was not violence.
In fact, it was just sort of a botched job. And I
think that that’s interesting. All of the people from
the university displayed some kind of a . . . well,
I don’t want to say “awe,” either, but I would say
the majority of the people from the university
displayed some kind of an affection, almost, a
kind of a patriotic feeling for the university and
kind of regretted that the university’s reputa¬
tion . . .

H: Or image.

G: ... or image—we’ve been saying “image,”
but “image” is a kind of a nasty word—but our
reputation had been tarnished at all. There were
a few who didn’t admit that it had or wouldn’t
admit that it mattered, which is interesting.

482

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

[laughter] But a great many expressed a disap¬
pointment over that.

R: The ones that I interviewed, regardless of
whether they can be considered right or left, were
more of the idea, though, that finally something
has happened at the university, and whether or
not they agreed with what had happened, they
were in a way pleased to see that there was some
feeling of awareness that they had not seen reg¬
istered before, that they had hoped would be reg¬
istered—maybe not in this way—but to know that
things were really alive, that this campus might
be a sort of a microcosm in comparison with what
was going on in the outside world, that maybe
this area had been too isolated for a long time.
And I got this kind of idea, whether they agreed
with what had happened or not.

H: I noticed that, too—the expression that
“something finally happened to the University
of Nevada.” I never quite agreed that we were
isolated, as the youngsters and some professors
are willing to think we are, or as aware of politi¬
cal implication about what’s going on. But they
kept saying, “Oh, well, finally if it’s happened at
the University of Nevada .” And it’s this tone of
voice. “Well, it couldn’t possibly happen here,
but it has.” A kind of subtle pride that something
has happened here. And they didn’t want their
university destroyed in any way.

R: And they may have been very opposed to
what has happened, but it was just the idea

H: That the students are alive. They are func¬
tioning politically, and well, I got tired of saying
it, frankly, because I didn’t think we were all that
dead here, [laughter] You had a question that elic¬
ited surprising answers.

G: Yes. Well, there were two questions that I
found particularly interesting in the responses—
well, no, more than that. But the question, “Why
do you think you were chosen to be interviewed
for this project?” elicited really very interesting
responses, because everyone, of course, is ego-

involved, and I guess there is some kind of a pres¬
tige factor in being invited to come in and tape
record for posterity.

I recall only one—and I can’t remember who
it was (even whether it was a student or a faculty
member)—who said, “I really don’t know. I
thought perhaps you would tell me.” And, of
course, I knew so few of the people that had been
invited to come in, and his name had been sug¬
gested, or, at least, I presume it had been sug¬
gested. Maybe someone meant someone else by
a different name. When we finished the inter¬
view, I didn’t know, either, [laughter]

H: What delighted me about these people was
that they came. And what was the percentage of
response?

G: About 80 percent.

H: About 80 percent. Some came, protesting that
they thought this was an inquisition from hell.
Some said that they didn’t know the value of it,
and, perhaps, some were a little frightened. They
didn’t know why they’d been chosen. But they
came, [laughter]

G: Yes. Well, that’s what I say. I think their ego
was involved.

H: Perhaps.

R: And curiosity.

G: Yes. And there was only that one. And I’m
still puzzled about that one. [laughter]

Another one of the questions, “How do you
think the Cambodia decision was related to what
happened next on our campus?” seemed to get a
response among some people to tell me what did
happen next, as far as they were concerned. In a
number of cases, this led them into all kinds of
free associations. And finally down to, oh, about
question number twelve, they had answered them,
the question number twelve being something
about the university’s image on the outside.

GLASS, RENDALL, HILTS

483

H: Yes. The original question was only number
six, so they’d gone through about half the list
with their free associating.

G: Yes. So that was very interesting to me, be¬
cause it indicated that perhaps we’d been logical
in drawing the questions and in ordering them.

Another one of the questions that just fasci¬
nated me in the response was the one on aca¬
demic freedom. The question reads: “Do you
think issues of academic freedom are involved
in participating in a demonstration?” For some
reason, among both students and faculty mem¬
bers, this began a discussion or a monologue on
part of the interviewing of what a university is
for, what the person’s involved in doing and his
discipline, what he thinks classroom activities
should be, what his particular field means to the
education of the whole western world, and defi¬
nitions of academic freedom that ran all the way
from right to left, and some really valuable, philo¬
sophical positions that someone in the future
might find very interesting to explore further.
These responses to the academic freedom thing
also led people to say that there was no right on
the campus to have any demonstrations at all,
that the only thing a university was about was to
have people go to class and learn whatever they
were to learn in the classroom situation, and it
was up to the professor to purvey knowledge.

H: That was one extreme.

G: That’s one extreme. The other extreme was
that anything that happens on the campus is in¬
volved in my academic freedom. A demonstra¬
tion is perhaps only a field trip in political sci¬
ence or sociology—or whatever this person might
have been talking about. And I found that very
interesting, along with these philosophical posi¬
tions on what a university is all about. To find
people wanting to discuss their conception of
what a university is, all the way from kind of a
technical school to the community of scholars in
the almost medieval sense, that fascinated me.

H: I got almost the same range of response to
that, now that you’ve mentioned the different
points that were made. Also, I interviewed one
alumna whose response to that question was
rather interesting, because she had been a stu¬
dent here during the 1950s—one that was an¬
other debate over academic freedom, [laughter]
Could I mention one question?

G: Do. I think we should.

H: I found very few positive answers to number
sixteen, “Where is the peace movement headed?”
Supposedly, this whole Governor’s Day demon¬
stration was in support of the peace movement.
Only one person even indicated that he thought
there might be some movement afoot or that it
was headed anywhere, and this young man pur¬
portedly the head of it. [laughter] Nobody seemed
to know if there was an organization, if they had
any particular goal, or if the goal was even ac¬
complished.

R: But that’s very true. That’s kind of the im¬
pression I got, too, that maybe this had not only
been the highest point in the peace movement
here, but it might be also the end of the peace
movement here. It didn’t seem to me that they
gave much hope for anything that was going to
happen. Oh, there was the idea, “Well, maybe
this is the beginning of something,” but you never
got the idea that they really had any hope that
something was going to come out of this—that it
was going to be forgotten.

Maybe it was the time of the year, too—you
know, at the end of the school year, and then there
was going to be a summer, which usually is a
cooling-off period on any campus. And they felt
that by the time they tried to pick up the thing,
beginning in the fall, that there wouldn’t be any¬
thing left, possibly. Or if there were, there’s so
much that could happen, they felt, politically, that
between the springtime and fall, too, it’s hard to
judge what really is going to happen with the
peace movement. But I felt that the reactions were
kind of negative.

484

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

H: That’s what I felt. And it surprised me so,
because supposedly this whole thing exploded
over ....

G: Over peace.

H: Yes. [laughter] And yet the movement itself
seemed to be ill-defined, and what the motiva¬
tion was is beyond me. Many people, or profes¬
sors, perhaps, felt that this all happened because
of the time of year. It’s springtime. The young
students are feeling their oats, and it’s just be¬
fore finals. I didn’t want to hear that sort of thing,
because, supposedly, this was a demonstration
on a very, very serious subject. And the young¬
sters were expressing their deep feelings.

R: Well, also, I was a little disappointed in mine,
not with the interviewees, but I felt that their
positions were a lot closer together than I thought
that they ever would be. I supposedly interviewed
some from the right and some from the left, but I
felt that they were, you know, basically the same.
There were a few different ideas, but basically
the same, and I was a little disappointed. I was
supposed to interview Dan McKinney, who I
believe was the president of the Black Students
Union. We contacted him twice, and both times
he was unable to come. I had hoped maybe
through that interview I would have heard a
slightly different position, maybe something rep¬
resentative of black students on the campus that
would be different from the white students that I
interviewed, but, unfortunately, he wasn’t able
to come.

G: Well, he just plain didn’t show up. He made
two appointments and just didn’t come.

R: Right.

G: I think he ’ s the only one that we weren ’ t able
to reschedule. If someone did break an appoint¬
ment, we were able to reschedule them, so the
people who have accepted have been interviewed.

But this business, this question on the peace
movement, I think you’re right. People expressed

to me pessimism or doubt or even some question
of whether there either was or had been or would
ever be any real movement beyond just sponta¬
neous gettings-together.

H: Yes. There were several responses to that that
indicated that perhaps they would work through
the usual political channels, trying to get candi¬
dates that might be more receptive to those stu¬
dents’ idea of what our government should be
striving for. Peace candidates. They’ve men¬
tioned this sort of thing. Rather than having dem¬
onstrations, they might work through political
channels. This was a rare response, I would say.

G: Yes. Well, having been involved in the peace
movement myself, I think that it’s just absolutely
remarkable that the various people who have been
involved are apparently not in communication
with each other, because when the Northern Ne¬
vada Peace Center was at least trying to be ac¬
tive, we were sending out hundreds of newslet¬
ters and having no massive response at all, hardly
any response of any sort. A number of the people
that I have interviewed never heard of the North¬
ern Nevada Peace Center, and yet they think
they’re right in the middle of a peace movement.
So I’d say that it’s probably fragmented—I mean,
if it exists at all. And that’s very interesting, since,
as we say, it supposedly erupted over that.

H: Yes. Did you want to mention the restrictions
that were possible for the interviewees and the
responses to that?

G: Oh, yes, I do, because we offered everyone
restrictions. As I said earlier, we didn’t want to
prejudice anything having to do with the investi¬
gation. I feel it would be very, very bad for the
university and the library and the Oral History
Project to be in a position of having gathered any
prejudicial material or making any prejudicial
material available. So we did offer a restriction,
and these restrictions have run all the way from
no restriction at all to one who said that if I would
send him the questions, he would make his tape
privately; he would send it to a third party; the

GLASS, RENDALL, HILTS

485

third party in five years would send it to the uni¬
versity. That one. I think, is very interesting.

Other people have asked for a year or two
years. One asked for a lifetime restriction. And
I've felt that we should agree to any restriction
that people ask for, since, if we offer any, we
should agree to any. And I'm going to do my best
to see that they are observed and that no one is
given any access to these, and that no one should
have any access until after the investigations arc
over, anyway. That’s the lowest possible restric¬
tion on any. And I think that we owe that to the
university.

R: These interviews are going to be cataloged
in the public catalog. Will they be under the name
of the person interviewed?

G: I don’t know how the archivist intends to
catalog them. The tapes, untranscribed, are be¬
ing put in boxes with just an alphabetical listing
on the outside. Now, I do know that the archivist
has a file of copies of letters, because we have
co-signed all of the correspondence, and that has
taken place over the invitations to interview and
the thank-you notes and confirmation of restric¬
tions after.

But I really feel that that part of it isn’t re¬
ally my problem, except that if anyone asks me
to break a restriction, I would say no. I really
feel that we owe this to people, and we owe it to
the university, too, not to be involved in any kind
of activity that might prejudice anyone, place
them under the investigation, or anything else.
A number of people have been very worried, but
I’m also just delighted to note that there are so
few restrictions. There really are very few. Con¬
sidering that we’ve done more than fifty inter¬
views, I don’t think that 20 percent of them are
under any kind of restriction after the investiga¬
tion is over.

H: I did ten, and only one put a restriction on it
of any kind, and that was merely a restriction
that if anyone wanted to quote from his words,
that he should have written permission from him.

That was the only restriction. That was one in
ten. All of the others said no restriction.

G: Yes. Well, I’m glad, personally, that we
haven’t had to restrict them any more than that,
because I do feel that research material should
be as open as possible. And if you’re gathering
research material, it should be available to re¬
searchers. That’s the only reason you do this,
[laughter]

H: The only reason for it.

G: Yes. And so I hope that researchers will find
something interesting here as a historical event,
as a sociological phenomenon, as a psychologi¬
cal phenomenon. I don’t think we had anybody
from the Psychology Department, just because
they haven’t been too involved, but I do feel that
psychologists might find very interesting the
comments of people who participated in the dem¬
onstrations and what they got out of it or what
they put into it. And, well, I think that the politi¬
cal scientist will undoubtedly find here a case
study. The people in the English Department, who
have been closely involved for a number of rea¬
sons, should find some linguistic study and some
novel material, some dramatic material, perhaps.

R: And sociology. I was thinking that one of the
questions I enjoyed most to hear - the answer to
was how people on the university campus felt
about relationships between community and cam¬
pus. This has always been a disputed thing around
here, you know: how the community feels about
the campus, and whether or not the feeling on
campus is anything like the way the community
feels. I think a sociologist could do an interest¬
ing study of the Reno area, comparing the way
people on the campus feel with the way the com¬
munity feels.

G: Yes. Well, we didn’t interview a lot of people
from the community. There didn’t seem to be any
particular reason to, but sometime it could well
be interesting to do more of these. I’m hoping
that this project will be kind of a pattern for some-

486

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

thing else. I hope we have no more teapot-sized
tempests to disrupt our normal activities, [laugh¬
ter] But if we do, I hope that we’ll do this again.
I think that we may have been too ambitious in
the number of people that we interviewed, be¬
cause, well, I really don’t know how many inter¬
views I did now. They have all run together. I
might have done as many as forty.

H: Oh, I think you might have.

G: But after a while, the responses began to
sound the same. Whether they are or not, they
began to sound the same.

H: Maybe it doesn’t really matter, because each
individual tape stands on its own.

G: Well, yes, each individual tape is a unique
thing, but to me they have all begun to sound the
same, until I wonder if we should have attempted
to do sixty or seventy. That’s all. I would, an¬
other time, perhaps, try to choose people that are
completely representative. I don’t know whether
you can do that.

H: No, I don’t, either.

G: Or do something more of a random sample,
because this was not a random sample. People
were chosen because of their involvement—ex¬
cept for the one person who was about as ran¬
dom as you could get! [laughter]

R: Yes. I think it turns out in a way to be fairly
random, because I know of one that was chosen
because he represented a particular department.
And I found that his views, personally, probably
did not represent the way the department felt,
although he could give how he felt the depart¬
ment was on the issue. So I think that they turned
out fairly random, even though they were from
different departments. They were from particu¬
lar departments, or they were activists or ROTC
or something of that sort.

H: If anything, mine reaffirmed my faith in the
individual. I didn’t find any people who were
particularly—oh, what would you say?—march
types, [laughter] The ROTC boy felt as strongly
about peace—or more so—than the boy who
spoke of being a demonstrator. I just found a con¬
cern for the university, a concern for our country
in a time of war', a concern for young people and
their place in the world no matter what faction
they were supposed to be representing.

R: That’s really true. Most of them were very
sympathetic and attempted, I think, in their re¬
sponses to be objective and fair. Very fair.

H: Yes. The other person’s point of view while
espousing their own.

G: Yes. I found very few who were hostile on
the other side—a few, but very few.

R: This is one thing about a live interview where
I wonder if it makes it quite as valid as if they
spoke on the tape by themselves in the privacy
of their own home, because they might be slightly
more objective if they knew they were talking to
someone. They wouldn’t want to sound com¬
pletely radical on one side or the other. They
might tone down their responses somewhat, be¬
cause it seemed to me that maybe they could have
given a little bit more of their personal opinion.
They could have been a little bit less objective.
And I felt that they were very fair and very ob¬
jective, and maybe it was because it was a live
interview. I don’t know.

H: Yes. That’s an interesting comment. Trying
to convince the interviewer of their humanity, it
becomes more objective, [laughter]

R: I, myself, think everybody does that. You
want to say, “Well, you know, this is the way I
feel,” but then you don’t want to look like a com¬
plete radical in front of somebody else. Whereas,
if you were just putting this down on tape in your
own home, you might tend to be a little bit less
reserved.

GLASS, RENDALL, HILTS

487

H: That’s an interesting point, yes.

G: Well, maybe another time we could work on
that kind of a project—let everybody take a tape
recorder home and just have at it. [laughter]

R: After a bad night’s sleep, get rid of their ag¬
gression and tape record.

G: Well, I think some of them did get rid of their
aggression with the interview. At least, I felt at
times as though I were being used as an emo¬
tional punching bag. Of course, this has been my
function in the Oral History Project for a long
time. Some people just see the tape recorder go,
and they see someone sitting there passively nod¬
ding and smiling and agreeing with everything
that they will say. And one of my techniques is
never to dispute. So with a sympathetic ear and a
sympathetic face nodding and smiling before you,
you just are tempted to use this as an emotional
purgative of some sort.

R: I felt from time to time, too, that I sensed the
people were glad to able to get their ideas down,
because it’s kind of frustrating to think about all
of these things and maybe discuss them with
friends, but you never are able to get them down
so that somebody can listen to them. And I had
the feeling several times, almost a sense of relief
that they were able to say something and that it
was actually going to be used, their ideas were
going to be heard.

H: So it took a certain amount of time to get all
these interviews taken care of. Tempers had
cooled down, some second thoughts had been
formulated, and one person said to me, “It’s a
good thing you didn’t get me the day after. I was
still screaming and jumping up and down!” At
this point, this person had examined his thoughts,
and he was a little more objective.

R: For a work for historical scholarship, usu¬
ally people don’t act on their first impulses. They
usually wait and think about it. I think almost
everybody does. And so I think as far as histori¬

cal scholarship, probably the people’s second
thoughts are the ones which will be most valu¬
able to the feeling of the university, rather than
those in those first emotional days.

G: Yes. Well, we asked for second thoughts on
the question on Governor’s Day: “What do you
think should have happened?”

R: Yes, that’s what I mean, that I think prob¬
ably this is of more value, because we did wait a
couple of months or a few weeks to ask these
questions, than if we interviewed people live
while the demonstrations were occurring.

H: They had time to think about what did hap¬
pen and what their response to it was.

G: Well, I wish that we could have seen your
interviewee while he was still jumping up and
down and screaming, because first thoughts are
valid, too. And after things have cooled down
and people forget, one person said to me, “I want
to give you a minute-by-minute account of what
I was doing.”

R: It would have been nice to get both, wouldn’t
it? The immediate reaction and then a month or
so later.

G: Yes. Well, maybe we’ll have to do a follow¬
up with some of them some day.

R: It would be particularly interesting to catch
some of them ten years from now and find out
how they felt about what happened and if it did
affect them and their lives, because for many of
these people, it really made them feel affected in
what they do.

G: Yes. Trying to explain for people, as well as
for the institution. I’m sure that this is true with
some of the people that I interviewed, that some
of them were deeply affected for one reason or
another. And it very well could be that way. It’d
be interesting to see what they’re doing in a while.

488

GOVERNOR’S DAY 1970

Well, just for the sake of a researcher, per¬
haps, we shouldn't just pretend to have been their
receptacle of information, although I do feel that,
as far as I'm concerned, the questions were ad¬
ministered fairly and impartially and sympatheti¬
cally with everyone that I saw. I should say that
I'm a sympathizer with the peace movement. I’ve
been against the war ever since it began, ever
since I knew anything about it. I have partici¬
pated in rallies and supported the Northern Ne¬
vada Peace Center with both money and effort.
But I did not feel that it was necessary to partici¬
pate in any kind of demonstration or even go to
the rallies in the bowl on Governor’s Day.

R: I participated in all the activities of that day
and in the demonstration, although in a limited
way. I felt that a lot of the demonstrations were
irrelevant, and not only that, but incorrect—an
incorrect way for people to express themselves.
And I did not participate in that particular phase
of the demonstration. But I am also a sympathizer
with the peace movement, and I try, at least, by
participating in demonstrations, to understand the
side of the demonstrators, as well as understand
the reactions of the non-demonstrators.

H: And I find it hard to say what I am. I’m an
interested and a sympathetic observer. I didn’t
attend the Governor’s Day ceremony and, there¬
fore, didn’t see the demonstration. All I knew of
it was what I read in the Sagebrush and the local
papers, and I was withholding judgment com¬
pletely, trying to understand and sympathize with
each individual interviewee’s point of view.

G: That’s interesting. I think that we probably
presented as much of a spectrum, as far - as inter¬
viewers, as we could, under the circumstances.
Now, does anyone have anything you’d like to
say in summary? [laughter] Shaking heads!
[laughter] Well, then we’ll just say that we have
tried to do something useful for researchers in
the history of the university. And if we have, then
we’re glad.

Index

Adamian, Paul, 1-18, 26, 57, 106, 118, 121, 125,
148, 154, 156, 162, 164-167, 171-172, ISO-
181, 183, 188, 191-192, 204, 213-214, 234,
238-239, 246-249, 256, 260, 288, 294, 296,
304, 319, 322-323, 325-326, 333, 337, 340,
362, 365-366, 373, 388, 400-402, 407, 410-
411,428,440, 467

Aggie Club (University of Nevada, Reno), 243,
245, 322, 344, 346
Agnew, Spiro Theodore, 177, 259
American Association of University Professors
(AAUP), 42, 69, 85, 249, 252, 311, 323, 345,
357, 364-365

Anderson, Elizabeth, 19-24, 172
Anderson, Jim, 20, 419
Armstrong, Charles J„ 477-478
Atkinson, Glen, 25-30

Backman, Carl, 31-34, 166-167, 204, 213-214
Baring, Walter S„ 368, 370
Barmettler, Edmund Robert, 35-44, 249
Basta, Sam M„ 45-52, 68, 159, 240, 259, 323, 439-
440

Biblars, Arturo, 401

Black Student Union (University of Nevada, Reno),
451, 456, 484
Blacks, 23, 54
Blink, James, 53-61

Board of Regents (Nevada System of Higher

Education), 5, 11-12, 14-15, 22, 29, 42, 66, 70,
101, 108-110, 130, 149, 158, 185, 197, 201,
206, 213, 221-222, 239, 248, 252, 260, 294,
296, 303, 310, 322, 338, 344, 354, 434, 441,
457, 459

Brewster, Kingman, 260
Briscoe, Elmer, 324
Brown, Charlie, 366
Bullis, Mr., 68

Cambodia, 1-2, 7, 13, 16, 19, 25-26, 31, 34-36, 44-
47, 53, 55, 63, 70, 73-74, 79-80, 82, 92, 94,
97-99, 102-103, 105, 109, 113-114, 118, 121-
123, 133-134, 139, 145-146, 153, 162-163,
165, 170, 175-177, 188, 192, 201, 211, 224-
225, 227, 229, 231-233, 243, 258, 263,
268-269, 277-278, 283, 299-300, 307, 311,
313, 317, 319, 321, 324, 329-332, 334, 349,
352, 357, 359, 368, 371, 374, 377, 383, 391-
392, 400, 405-406, 409, 425-427, 435-437,
439, 443, 449, 453, 460, 463-464, 471, 475,
482

490

INDEX

Cannon, Howard W., 368, 418
Carpenter, Kenneth J„ 63-71, 170, 231, 371, 415,
477-478, 480

Center for Religion and Life (University of Nevada,
Reno), 89, 101, 108, 157, 168, 189, 246, 267,
288, 345, 452

Chiarito, Americo, 73-77, 215
Clapp, Bill, 401
Clayton, Dan, 256

College of Agriculture (University of Nevada,

Reno), 9, 67, 243, 245-251, 319, 326, 343-344,
383

College of Arts and Science (University of Nevada,
Reno), 250, 335, 415

College of Business (University of Nevada, Reno),
29, 306

Copren, William G. 79-88

Cosgrove, Thomas, 89-95

Crowley, Joseph N„ 97-104, 167, 401, 408, 414

Curtis, Jack, 247

Dandini, Alessandro, 164, 171
Del Papa, Frankie Sue, 10, 22, 58, 105-111, 163,
169, 250, 287, 303, 346, 364
Democrats, 29

Dodson, John, 50, 67, 89, 170, 220, 247, 352, 405,
410, 412, 478, 480
Doherty, John R., 113-119
Dominican Republic, 121-122
Douglas, Bruce, 121-131
Douglas, Helen Gahagan, 405
Dwyer, Larry, 133-138, 407, 419

Edwards, Harry, 205, 435
Ehrlich, Paul, 421

Farr, Mel, 84
Fike, Ed, 418
Flynn, Dennis, 139-144
Frank, George, 68
Fremlin, Ron, 412

Fresno State University (Fresno, California), 157

Gartenberg, Joel M„ 145-151, 466, 481
Gibson, James I., 108, 240-241, 439
Glass, Mary Ellen, 477-488
Gonzales, Johnny, 238
Goudsmit, Sam, 422
Griswold, Taber, 153-159

Hartman Hall (University of Nevada, Reno), 27, 48,
56, 66, 83, 88, 115, 125, 135, 165, 174, 196,
199, 235, 237, 259, 272, 320, 345-346, 350-
352, 361, 388, 430-431, 437, 439, 454-455,
473-474, 481

Harvey, David, 214, 221, 401
Harvey, Robert D„ 27, 67, 154, 161-174, 180-181,
191, 204, 213, 257-258
Hathorne, Dean, 384
Hattori, Henry, 238

Hazard, Ben, 67, 71, 154, 166-167, 175-192, 214-
215, 247, 258, 296, 322, 352, 401
Herman, George, 27, 169

Hill, Robert, 66, 106, 164, 186, 202, 244, 280, 291,
296, 308, 388, 427, 430, 466, 481
Hiller, Gunter, 156, 247, 306, 401, 430
Hilts, Ruth, 477-488

Hobbit Hole (University of Nevada, Reno), 26, 48,
56, 66, 83-84, 88, 92, 115, 125, 135, 148, 155,
162, 174, 199, 221, 235, 237, 246, 259, 265,
302, 320, 323, 338-339, 345-346, 351, 361,
380, 411, 438, 451-452, 454-455
Hoffman, Abbie, 214, 217-218, 220-222
Hudson, Beverly M., 193-200
Hug, Procter Jr., 128, 156, 163-165, 172, 185-187,
201-209, 213-214, 248, 252, 286, 288, 294,
333, 335, 337, 352-353, 365, 410
Hulse, James W„ 27, 67, 138, 163-171, 202, 204,
211-222, 257, 326, 333, 359, 363, 407, 418
Humboldt National Forest, 413-414
Humphrey, Neil D., 365
Hyde, Laurance M. Jr., 169, 223-229, 237, 478

Inglis, Dick, 290

INDEX

491

Jackson, Mississippi, 444
John Birch Society, 208
Johnson, Lyndon B., 465, 468

Kahin, George McTurnan, 357
Keller, David, 231-241
Kennedy, John F„ 326, 348, 447
Kennedy, Robert F., 15, 221, 326
Kent State University (Kent, Ohio), 2, 5, 7, 23, 25-
26, 31, 46-47, 53-55, 63, 67, 81, 89-90, 92, 98,
100, 105-106, 113-114, 123, 127, 133-134,

140, 153, 155-156, 162-163, 165, 168, 170,
175-177, 181, 184, 189, 192, 203, 211, 214,
217, 223-225, 232-233, 235, 237, 244, 247,
255-256, 258, 263, 269, 277-278, 284, 287,
291, 296, 301, 307, 317, 319-321, 323, 332-
334 , 344, 349, 352, 358, 360, 366, 371-372,
377, 380, 400, 405-407, 426-427, 435-436,
442, 449-450, 453, 456, 460, 464, 466, 469,
471

King, Martin Luther, 326
Kirk, Lawrence M., 243-253
Kirkpatrick, Harold L., 187, 189
KOLO Radio (Reno, Nevada), 28, 68, 84

Lamb, Floyd R„ 108, 439, 466
Laxalt, Paul Dominque, 27, 37, 74, 77, 114, 119,
155, 163, 179, 181, 280, 286, 293
Leonard, Paul, 407
Lesag, John, 247
Linowitz, Sol M., 110
London, England, 17
Lyman, Stan, 401

Mackay Day (University of Nevada, Reno), 366,
373

Maher, Fred, 26, 85, 118, 148, 156, 164-165, 172,
180, 188, 204, 246-249, 255-261, 288, 304,
325, 337, 340, 362, 365-366, 400, 402, 410,
440

Malone, Robert, 66, 263-266, 294, 388
Marschall, John R, 67, 89, 267-275
Maya, Steve, 247
Mazour, Anatole, 220

McCarthy, Eugene, 15, 169, 221, 229, 418, 447

McCarthy, Joseph, 65, 103, 324, 418

McKinney, Dan, 156, 484

McQueen, Robert, 185

Military Science Department (University of

Nevada, Reno), 146, 148, 212, 233, 291, 429,
431, 451

Miller, N. Edd, 10-11, 20-22, 26, 42, 55, 58, 67, 75-
76, 82, 84, 88, 90, 93, 102, 106-107, 109, 124,
146-147, 149, 162-163, 168, 174, 177-180,

185, 191, 197, 200, 214-215, 234, 240, 248-
249, 251-252, 257, 259, 271, 277-282,

285-287, 293, 295-296, 308, 310, 321-322,
331-332, 335, 338, 340, 346, 360, 363, 365,
368-369, 379, 381, 415, 427-428, 431, 437,
444, 446, 452-454, 457, 464, 478
Mitchell, John, 405
Mordy, Wendell A., 273
Morehouse, Harold G., 477-478
Morgenthau, Hans J., 357
Morse, Charlotte, 283-290
Myers, Tom, 164, 256-257, 400

National Association of Student Personnel Adminis¬
trators (NASPA), 45-46, 52
Nevada State Cattle Association, 248
Nevada State Journal, 150
Nixon, Richard M., 2,7, 9, 13, 16, 19, 25, 30-31,
44-45, 63, 70, 73, 80, 84, 87, 89, 93, 103, 113-
114, 116, 119, 121, 133, 144, 168, 172,
175-176, 201, 211, 223-224, 232, 255, 283,
311, 317, 325-327, 329, 332, 339, 357, 374,
405-406, 427, 443-444, 449, 464
Northern Nevada Concern, 103
Notre Dame University (South Bend, Indiana), 21

O’Callaghan, Donal N„ “Mike,” 412, 418
Olsen, Edward A., 185, 291-297, 320, 414
Onassis, Aristotle, 326
Onassis, Jacqueline Kennedy, 326

492

INDEX

Patterson, Richard Gary Jr., 299-306

Pauli, Wolfgang, 422

Peltier, Gary, 307-312, 363

Perriera, Pete, 159

Peterson, Glen, 158

Phoenix, Dave, 246

Pine, Edward L„ 313-316

Piper, Brooke M„ 156, 317-327

Pitzer, Kenneth, 32

Pozzi, Archie Jr., 109, 180

Princeton University (Princeton, New Jersey), 358

Raggio, William J„ 64, 68, 84, 368, 418
Ralf, Earl W„ 335
Ravenholt, Otto, 368

Reagan, Ronald, 225, 318, 327, 362, 369-370
Reed, Jim, 400

Rendall, Marian, 215, 477-488
Reno Evening Gazette, 68
Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), 3, 9, 20,
26, 28, 32-33, 38, 46-47, 55-56, 58, 60, 66, 73-
75, 81-84, 89-90, 100, 106, 114-115, 123-124,
126, 128, 135, 140, 141, 148, 150, 154-156,
158, 167, 169, 175, 177, 179-180, 186, 191-
192, 194-195, 202-203, 213, 215-216, 219,
231-232, 234-235, 245, 257-259, 264-265,
269-270, 279, 284-286, 291, 296, 301, 315,
318, 320-323, 331, 333-338, 359, 361-362,
366, 373, 378-380, 384-385, 396, 407, 410,
427-430, 436, 445, 452, 454-457, 464-466,
471-474, 480, 486
Rhee, Syngman, 417

Richardson, James T., 166-167, 213, 329-341
Robertson, Joseph H., 344-348
Ross, Charles W„ 349-355
Rusco, Elmer R., 357-370
Ryall, AlanS., 371-375

Sagebrush (University of Nevada, Reno), 67-68,
252, 256

San Francisco Chronicle, 183-184

Sattwhite, Jesse, 131, 238-239, 304, 329-330, 337

School of Home Economics (University of Nevada,
Reno), 250
Scott, Bill, 401
Sellers, Joseph, 377-382
Seufferle, Charles, 383-390, 412
Sherman, Doug, 58, 116, 156, 246, 258, 438
Sherwood, Richard W., 391-397
Siegel, Richard L., 399-403
Sierra Club, 406,413
Sill, Richard C„ 405-424
Skorpen, Erling, 208, 310, 402
Skunk Hollow (University of Nevada, Reno), 250
Slattery, James M„ 9, 58, 64, 66, 68, 83-84, 171,
183, 188, 235, 259, 302, 318, 320-321, 338,
438

Slemmons, Dave, 237, 256, 400
Springer, Anthony, 425-434
Springer, Charles, 159, 323-324, 354, 418, 466, 481
Stanford University (Palo Alto, California), 28, 32
Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), 125, 456,
465

Sundowners (University of Nevada, Reno), 9, 66,
84, 184, 186, 235-236, 245, 250, 288, 322,

325, 377-378, 464, 480

Teglia, Dan, 66-67, 154, 156, 159, 214-215, 221,
237, 351,408,418

Test, Louis S„ 250, 388, 435-442, 468

Thornton, Barbara, 478

Thornton, William C„ 169-170, 443-447

United Student Alliance (USA), 153, 450, 456, 473
University of California, Berkeley, 20, 22, 98, 118,
148, 173, 176, 182, 191, 204-205, 324-326,
380, 403

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 389
University of Oklahoma (Norman, Oklahoma), 28-
29

Valline, William, 449-461

Vietnam War, 1, 8, 16, 20, 23-24, 55, 73-74, 80, 87,
99, 103, 110, 121-122, 124, 127, 146, 173,

INDEX

493

Vietnam War (continued), 177, 193, 195, 202, 208,
211, 231, 258, 260, 263, 283, 285, 291, 295,
302, 209, 311, 319, 324, 332-333, 343-344,
349, 371-372, 374, 377, 382-383, 387, 399-
400, 402, 406, 408, 425-429, 432, 435-437,
439, 445, 449, 451, 453, 463, 468-469, 475
Voskuil, Walter, 419

Wallace, George Corley, 467
Watson, David W., 463-488
Whalen, Brian, 471-475

Photograph Credits

4 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1196

27 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1196

36 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1170

37 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P3213

46 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P3065

57 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P3213

64 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P3041

91 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1196

98 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P3065

102 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno

122 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1053

162 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P3065

167 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1196

496

PHOTOGRAPH CREDITS

212 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1660
216 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1196
224 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1669
256 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P3213
278 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno
284 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno

292 Special Collections, University of Nevada-Reno Library, UNRS-P1989-51-21

293 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1196
308 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1815
314 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1127
330 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P3065
344 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P3066
350 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P2070
358 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P3088-59
372 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1487
384 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1107
400 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P3065
444 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P1724
472 University Archives, University of Nevada-Reno, UNRA-P788
478 University of Nevada Oral History Program

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Governor's Day 1970"

See other formats